Stipulated: Clarence Thomas’s extensive conflicts involving his right-wing billionaire pals mandate his resignation or removal. The fact that his wife is a conservative activist does not. No, the flags that Samuel Alito’s wife likes flying over the couple’s domiciles are not a reason for him to recuse himself from anything. Somewhere between these two extremes, but closer to the flags than Thomas’ goody bag, is the new assault on Justice Roberts.
Christopher Armitage, a far Left scholar whose anti-GOP, anti-Trump positions are cloaked in respectability, came up with this one. He describes himself as “independent.” Strangely, his work “has been cited by the Brookings Institution and covered by NPR, PBS, Mother Jones, and The Nation.” Those are all infamous Leftist propaganda organs, with Mother Jones and The Nation on the extreme end of the spectrum.
Now he is getting cheered by those sources for a Medium post that asserts,
Ethics Alarms 
OK not being a lawyer here, and on a jetlag. I am trying to get my head around this post.
The headline of the article says “The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On. I’m Filing for His Disbarment Today.“
That is materially different than that the Chief Justice’s wife works for firm A that performs business services for another firm B for 20 million dollar. That 20 million dollar is business revenue for firm A, not household money for the Roberts family, and legally it does not create a conflict of interest according to the sources you quote. Do I understand the facts of the case correctly? And just to understand the legal aspects of the case, it would not count as a conflict of interest to the sources you quote if the Chief Justice’s wife worked for firm B as an independent contractor, am I correct?
If I am correct in all my assumptions this is simply another ploy to delegitimize SCOTUS, or try to get rid of conservative leaning justices. Rep J Olszewski (D-MD) from Maryland introduced the ROBE act to term limit SCOTUS justices, for the same nakedly political reason given the age of the conservative justices.