The 4th Amendment protects a person in the privacy of his own home, even if that person is a queer. That's all that needs to be said - nothing about the opinions of foreign jurists, globalism or a "living Constitution". It's simple. If you allow government officers to enter a private residence to look for sodomy, then you open the door for allowing them to enter your residence to look for guns or banned literature. As long as what the individual is doing in his home does not present a clear and present danger to children or non-consenting adults in that home or to those beyond the walls of that home or to society in general, then that activity, however perverse, must be protected under the 4th Amendment. Otherwise, the powers that be, may some day consider the possible possession of a gun or "Atlas Shrugged", to be perverse enough to justify entry into your home.
Having said that, Breyer's suggestion that the U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to anything, especially international will, is on it's own merit, more than justification to begin impeachment proceedings. In fact, O'Connor's suggestion that the Constitution may not be the last word on US law, borders on justification for similar action on her part.
In his dissent on the Lawrence v Texas ruling, Justice Scalia made a most insightful observation on the state of the Court today:
"Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture,..."
The Constitution is indeed, a living document, but not in the way that certain members of the Court would have us believe. The reason that the Constitution is a living document, is because Article V of the Constitution, grants the people the right to amend the Constitution. It is the people, who make the Constitution a living document. In fact, the people have grown the Constitution 27 times since it was originally signed.
It is not up to the Court to change the Constitution - only to rule on cases, based upon the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution and its subsequent amendments. Only the people have the right to make the Constitution subservient to international opinion, and then, only via the amendment process - a process, it should be noted, that the people have not chosen to undertake. For a Supreme Court Justice to even suggest that anything should supersede the Constitution, as amended, is nothing short of absolute justification for impeachment.
I, for one, would welcome the beginning of impeachment proceedings against both Breyer and O'Connor, were it not for one fact. Based upon Dubya's track record (ex: the Patriot Act, the HSA, the Jose Padillia case, etc.), he would probably replace them with jurists who have even less respect for the Constitution than Breyer or O'Connor. More important than impeachment, is replacing the globalist justices with true Constitutionalists and that's something that Dubya is just not inclined to do. Under the current administration, it's a lose-lose situation.