I'll be brief.
I don't remember where I heard this, but it went something like this:
When they put on the robe, they stop being of a political party and they start being servants of the people.
Even taking out of the equation the obvious conflict of interest that Justice Scalia had and didn't recuse himself from a case involving hunting buddy Dick Cheney, as well as some of the other behavior or contradiction between statements and rulings of Justices Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Alito - there was never a situation that so clearly and pointedly showed the political bias of someone whose job is to be one of the ultimate unbiased arbiters of justice in this country.
Last night, not only did Justice Alito breach that protocol, but he called into serious question whether he is fit to serve as an independent arbiter of justice, or if he is merely another partisan cheerleader.
Americans can no longer be sure that he can faithfully execute his duties on the Supreme Court without having his political bias or personal vendetta against President Obama and his supporters come into play. If he couldn't even keep his emotions and disagreement to himself during the President's State of the Union speech, then how can he keep them hidden in complex cases that require independence and a lack of bias towards any one political party?
For that, he has thrown out the trust that was given to him when he put that robe on, and stopped being one of the "servants of the people".
And for that, there is no other option than a forceful call to impeach him - as this is from his own actions, his own doing. He is incapable of putting political bias behind him and he is incapable of being a fair or independent Justice.
His actions have disqualified him from the very sacred position he holds and nothing short of his impeachment and removal is warranted.
Update [2010-1-28 14:32:6 by clammyc]: Riddle me this, doubters - if this was a Bush SOTU and Justice Stevens did this, do you not think there would be howling nonstop about impeachment? Wasn't there a call to poison his creme brulee for something innocent and non-political?
You don't win by avoiding bold statements that push back, sorry.
Update [2010-1-28 14:32:6 by clammyc]: Again, because some people don't seem to get what I am saying - think about this: The term "activist judge" is ascribed to Democrats because Republicans have repeated it over and over and over. The truth that it is Republicans who are activist judges is lost on public discourse because of comments below of "this is dumb" or "this is silly", and therefore the public thinks that Democrats want to put activist judges in. You can continue to be "pure" and have the public against you in terms of opinion or you can push back and try and change public opinion.
I choose to try and change public perception. You can do what you want.