In May 2022, a cowardly traitor destroyed the sanctity of the Supreme Court, violating one of its essential values: secrecy. This degenerate leaked the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that, a month later, finally did away with the 1973 constitutional abomination known as Roe v. Wade. Nearly three and a half years later, the leaker remains unnamed, even though he or she caused a summer of violent threats from leftists and constant harassment of a majority of the Supreme Court in their homes and at their children’s schools, in blatant violation of 18 U.S. Code §1507 and other federal criminal statutes — as well as the near-assassination of another justice and his family. This past Friday, the judiciary was betrayed again — this time directly by a sitting judge.
Nicholas Roske, a pet store employee from California, was very upset about the Dobbs leak. He was a fervent abortion supporter and wanted to stop the overturning of Roe. Instead of campaigning to elect Democrats who would implement his preferred agenda — the actions of someone who truly respects representative democracy — Roske extensively planned and prepared, then flew from Los Angeles International Airport to the area near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the purported members of the majority according to the Dobbs leak. In a series of social media posts before his departure, Roske indicated his desire to assassinate three Supreme Court justices to preserve abortion rights.
Roske came well-prepared to kill Justice Kavanaugh. Among other things, he brought a handgun, nearly 40 rounds of ammunition, a tactical knife, lock-picking tools, a nail punch, a crowbar, a pistol light, duct tape, pepper spray, zip ties, and hiking boots with padding on the soles so he could move about the Kavanaughs’ home more quietly. Justice Kavanaugh lives with his wife and two teenage daughters. God forbid what would have happened had the other Kavanaughs tried to defend him. When Roske arrived, however, he found he could not go through with his plan because law enforcement was outside the Kavanaughs’ home. Realizing they had seen him, Roske called 911 and claimed to be suicidal, confessing his assassination plan to the dispatcher.
When police arrived and arrested Roske, he repeated his confession and explained why he wanted to kill Justice Kavanaugh. For the past three and a half years, he has sat in jail. Last Friday, he finally received his sentence after his guilty plea before Maryland U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman. Boardman was one of President Biden’s earliest judicial appointees — and one of his worst, which is quite a statement given some of the atrocious rulings Biden-appointed judges have handed down. Boardman’s sentencing of Roske, however, stands out as the decision most deserving of ignominy. The prosecution justifiably recommended a 30-year sentence. The United States has never had a Supreme Court justice assassinated; indeed, only one other attempt had occurred prior to Justice Kavanaugh’s brush with death.
Roske had a secret weapon on his side: his supposed mental illness of gender dysphoria. While in jail, Roske indicated that he was transgender and wished to be called Sophie and addressed with female pronouns. Boardman accepted this, musing at sentencing that a bright spot had come out of the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh — that Roske’s mother now recognized his gender identity. Boardman referred to Roske as female. Then she delivered the coup de grâce, handing down a pathetically lenient sentence of eight years’ imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release. Eight years. That, apparently, is the legal price one must pay for an act that, had it succeeded, would have torn at the very fabric of the Republic. The assassination would have changed history, as Roe would have been safe for decades to come. There is no doubt Biden would have nominated a leftist to replace Justice Kavanaugh, and the Democrat-controlled Senate would have gleefully confirmed the nominee. So much for the rule of law.
Judges must begin sentencings by calculating the appropriate range under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Guidelines are a starting point for district judges and are advisory. Boardman wrongly rejected a terrorism enhancement for Roske. If his conduct was not an attempt to commit an act of terrorism, nothing is. He wanted to murder three justices to change the outcome of one of the most contested cases in American history. In addition to that error, Boardman also made another: she issued a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Appellate courts, unlike district judges, must presume that sentences within the Guidelines range are reasonable. Boardman, however, gave a gargantuan departure in favor of Roske. There is precedent in several circuits for reversing sentences as substantively unreasonable. The Seventh Circuit did just that in United States v. Vrdolyak (2010), a case in which a leftist judge had absurdly given probation to a corrupt former Chicago Democratic alderman nicknamed ‘Fast Eddie,’ who had engaged in massive fraud. The Eleventh Circuit likewise reversed another leftist judge who had imposed a woefully lenient sentence in United States v. Martin (2005, 2006). That court made the mistake of remanding to the same judge for resentencing after the first reversal but did not repeat the error.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has rightly decided to appeal this abomination of a decision. If the leftist-controlled Fourth Circuit does not reverse Boardman, the Supreme Court must. Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk, received nine and a half years in prison because she gave unauthorized access to the county’s election system in an effort to root out fraud. Her actions did not change one vote, and there was zero risk of violence. By contrast, Roske, who tried to murder a Supreme Court justice, received a year and a half less time. That disparity in favor of Roske is indefensible. Boardman even gave a sentence six months harsher to an identity thief a month ago than she handed to Roske.
Aside from Justice Kavanaugh, no other justice would need to recuse. In In re Neagle (1890), the Supreme Court heard a dispute related to the attempted assassination of Justice Stephen Field after California charged the deputy marshal guarding him with murder. On remand, the court that reverses this monstrous decision must order the case reassigned to another judge.
Boardman, a federal public defender for more than a decade, has shown she is incapable of issuing a sentence that will deter similar conduct. If this sentence stands, Roske will be out in about four years, given the time he has already served. Justice Kavanaugh and his family, however, will be impacted for the rest of their lives. And in Boardman’s court, it is abundantly clear that the lives of conservative justices do not matter nearly as much as a happy gender identity ending. The House must begin an impeachment inquiry into Judge Boardman immediately.
