Jim since the justice himself did NOT take any money than your whole argument is mute. Had HE been the one in question than I could understand your outrage but since that is NOT the case me thinks that thou protest too much! Sorry Al didn't mean to step on your toes.
Damian, Jim is absolutely correct in this issue. The government must (and should) be concerned about familial influences, ergo there is the question on the disclosure form relating to the "spouse". The government did not ask Mrs. Thomas if she was paid by a conservative think tank, they simply required Mr. Thomas to indicate whether or not his spouse received income that was not interest based.
Mr. Thomas, whether or not he actually filled out the form, signed the form as required, thereby swearing under penalty of perjury that his spouse DID NOT receive any non-interest income. Mr. Thomas is responsible for the accuracy of the information on the form and he failed, for whatever reason, to report accurately the status of his wife's income.
It falls far from the "...much ado about nothing" category, IMHO. NOBODY in the U.S.A. is above the law, not even Richard Nixon (he responded to a question regarding Watergate during an interview to the effect that he believed "If the president does it, it's NOT against the law".....what a shame he wasn't prosecuted for his misunderstanding of the facts).
Mr. Thomas could, and should, be held accountable for his error. Perhaps it was a simple error, but I, for one, find it difficult to believe that any married couple would be unaware of family income originating from their spouses if it were of the magnitude reported by Jim. I mean, they both also have to sign off on their income taxes IF they filed a joint return. Now, if Mr. and Mrs. Thomas file separate returns, he may well have been unaware of her income (although, again, it'd be hard to not be aware of income in that amount, IMHO), but he was still responsible for the accuracy of the information on the disclosure form, regardless of his political party affiliation or his political beliefs. This is not an issue of Demopublicans against Republicrats, liberals against conservatives, skinheads against hippies, it is an issue of honesty from one of the 9 people who are almost unfettered in their ability to MAKE law (don't believe me, think about Roe V. Wade....there's an example where the Supreme Court established legality).
I can't believe you aren't incensed by this transgression against the population of our great country. SHAME ON all who are not, this man should have his feet held to the fire for this 6 year act of deception and we as citizens should be marching on the streets in protest.
Cheers to all those who value the principals on which our constitution was based, which includes honesty and impartiality in the judiciary branch of the government, and JEERS to those who don't recognize the magnitude of this transgression.
Doug