It's a shame you're being downvoted because you make a fine point - Thomas' ethics aren't really at issue w.r.t. the ruling here, since it applies to local officials and not people in the federal government.
Is a local official accepting a bribe inherently better than a federal official?
If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.
I don't think anyone is arguing in favour of bribes for either local or federal officers - just that this particular ruling is not related (directly/legally) to the actions of the Supreme Court justices themselves.
It's a matter of optics and reflects the growing concern and distrust of the supreme Court in the current political US climate.
Justices are in the spotlight for improper and unreported gifts.
Anyone that's been in a large Corp knows a bit of bribing because of the yearly training you have to take.
The fact they brushed it off as nothing to worry about and now start to make changes that loose regulations is very concerning. Even if these changes don't affect them directly.
It makes his grifting look and be less bad. It matters legally, as precedent is a big part of US law, and in PR, as he can claim it is not bribery because he has now defined it to not be.
If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.