Could a would-be assassin walk away with a mere slap on the wrist because of a judge’s personal views? That’s the burning question Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) is raising after a Biden-appointed judge handed down a surprisingly light sentence to Nicholas Roske, who attempted to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Breitbart reported that in a shocking case from June 2022, Cotton is calling for an investigation—and potentially impeachment—of Judge Deborah Boardman over her sentencing of Roske to just 97 months, or roughly eight years, in prison.
Let’s rewind to the chilling events that started this controversy. Back in June 2022, Roske flew from Los Angeles to Dulles International Airport, carrying a firearm and ammunition in his checked baggage. His destination? Montgomery County, Maryland, with a sinister plan to kill Justice Kavanaugh.
Roske’s intent was clear—he admitted as much in his guilty plea earlier this year. Yet, when Judge Boardman delivered her sentence, the punishment seemed to barely fit the crime.
Boardman’s decision to give Roske only eight years has sparked outrage, especially given the gravity of targeting a Supreme Court justice. Cotton argues this leniency smells of political bias, not justice.
Adding fuel to the fire, Roske now identifies as a transgender woman named Sophie, a factor Boardman reportedly considered during sentencing. Politico noted the judge even questioned whether Roske would get proper mental health care in federal prison. Was this a fair concern or a detour from the real issue?
Cotton didn’t mince words on this point. “This man — and he is a man — traveled across the country with the express purpose of kidnapping and killing a center-right Supreme Court justice,” Cotton said. “He should be in prison for life, or at least a lot longer than eight years.”
Continuing his critique, Cotton added, “This radical, left-wing Biden judge, though, gave him only eight years, and she expressly said it was because he wouldn’t be housed in a female prison — because he now thinks he’s a woman.” Is this a case of judicial overreach, where personal beliefs trump the rule of law?
Let’s be clear: attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice isn’t a minor offense to be softened by identity considerations. While empathy for mental health struggles is important, it shouldn’t overshadow the severity of a premeditated violent act.
Cotton’s call for accountability doesn’t stop at criticism. He’s urging the House to investigate whether Boardman’s ruling warrants impeachment, a rare but serious step for a federal judge.
Should a judge’s sentencing reflect controversial social policies over the crime itself? That’s the crux of Cotton’s argument, and it’s hard to disagree when the safety of a Supreme Court justice hangs in the balance.
Boardman’s defenders might argue she was weighing complex factors, like mental health treatment in prison. But when a life-threatening plot gets reduced to a sentence of under a decade, questions of proportionality loom large.
The broader implication here is trust in our courts. If judges are perceived as bending to progressive agendas rather than upholding impartial justice, public confidence erodes faster than a sandcastle at high tide.
Roske’s case isn’t just about one man or one judge—it’s about whether the judiciary can remain a pillar of fairness in a polarized age. Cotton’s push for scrutiny might be the wake-up call needed to ensure accountability.
Ultimately, this saga leaves us with a lingering unease: Are our courts sentencing based on law, or on personal politics? While compassion has its place, justice must never take a backseat to ideology, especially when lives are on the line.