A federal judge with a track record as a Biden appointee handed the would-be assassin of Justice Brett Kavanaugh a sentence of just 97 months — eight years and one month — last week, a punishment that falls shockingly short of what the Department of Justice argued was merited for an attempt to murder a Supreme Court justice. The shocking disparity between the prosecution’s request and the judge’s ruling has left law-abiding Americans wondering whose side the justice system is really on.
The facts of the case are chilling: Nicholas (now Sophie) Roske flew across the country with a handgun, ammunition, lock-picking tools and a clear plan to break into Justice Kavanaugh’s home and kill him in the night. Roske ultimately called 911 and surrendered, which the judge said merited leniency, even as prosecutors characterized the plot as an act of terrorism aimed at reshaping the Court through violence.
Judge Deborah Boardman emphasized Roske’s mental health struggles and lack of a criminal record when imposing a sentence miles below the federal guidelines and the 30 years sought by prosecutors, a reasoning that will read like a dangerous precedent to anyone who believes the scales of justice should be blind to motive. Sympathy for a would-be political assassin does not equal justice for the target, the target’s family, or the nation’s constitutional order.
This outcome also raises a broader, uncomfortable truth about the Biden judicial pipeline. Judge Boardman was nominated by President Biden and confirmed in June 2021, part of an agenda that has prioritized certain ideological and professional backgrounds on the bench. Conservatives warned then that an ideologically skewed judiciary would lead to policy masquerading as mercy, and today’s sentence looks like a textbook example of that concern.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi and the Justice Department have already signaled they will appeal, calling the sentence “woefully insufficient,” which is the only sane next move if we are to preserve deterrence against politically motivated violence. The appeal is necessary not just to seek a stiffer punishment but to reassert that attacking judges because you disagree with their rulings will be met with the full force of the law.
Americans of every political stripe should recoil at violence, but conservatives are right to be alarmed when the response tilts toward excusing wrongdoing instead of protecting institutions. If leniency becomes the norm for assailants motivated by left-wing rage over court decisions, the message to would-be attackers is clear: ideology will buy you mercy. That is an intolerable erosion of law and order.
Now is the time for Republicans in Congress, state officials, and patriotic citizens to demand reforms: tougher sentences for targeted political violence, clearer guidelines that prevent prosecutors’ recommendations from being gutted by judicial sympathy, and protections for Supreme Court justices and their families. We must not allow the safety of our judges or the integrity of our courts to become bargaining chips in a culture war. The appeal must succeed, and conservatives must remain loud, united, and unrelenting in defending the rule of law.
