What's Wrong With This Syllogism?

If (1) Justice Breyer thinks reference to foreign law is appropriate to understand structural guarantees; and (2) Congress is constitutionally authorized to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts; then (3) Justice Breyer should rely on foreign law to shed light on this structural power.

If this syllogism is correct, then I suppose that if (1) a foreign constitution grants the legislature the absolute right to remove any matter from judicial review; and (2) Congress resolves to preclude federal court reliance on foreign law; then (3) Justice Breyer should rely on this foreign law to lend support for Congress’ authority to preclude judicial reliance on foreign law.

What am I missing? Just curious.