www.dailysignal.com
Kavanaugh Assassination Plotter’s Lenient Judge Has History of Controversial Rulings
The federal judge who gave a lighter-than-expected sentence to the would-be assassin of Justice Brett Kavanaugh has built up a record for controversial left-leaning rulings during her short time on the bench.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland on Friday sentenced Nicholas Roske to eight years in prison, substantially below the 30 years federal prosecutors sought.
Roske started to identify as female during his incarceration and took the first name “Sophie,” which Boardman reportedly took into consideration in the sentencing. Boardman said she was concerned the plotter would have to serve his sentence in a male prison. Roske also got lifetime supervised release after he serves his eight years.
Roske’s motive for going after Kavanaugh and his family was reportedly over the high court’s pending ruling to overturn the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling in 2022.
The Justice Department argued that a premeditated plot against a Supreme Court justice warranted a severe sentence. The defense countered that Roske, who had planned to commit suicide after committing the planned assassination, stopped and called a family member before calling 911 to turn himself in.
1. Biden Appointee With Criminal Defense Background
President Joe Biden nominated Boardman to the judgeship in March 2021. She was confirmed along a mostly party-line 52-48 vote the following June.
Boardman spent a decade at the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Maryland, spanning 2008 to 2019. For four of those years, she was the first assistant federal public defender.
In 2019, she became a federal magistrate judge for the District of Maryland. Magistrate judges are appointed by a team of district judges.
Before working in government, she worked for the law firm Hogan & Hartson in Washington, D.C.
2. LGBTQ+ Ruling Overturned by Supreme Court
In 2023, Boardman denied a request from parents in Maryland to opt out their children from public school classes where LGBTQ+ books are promoted.
In June of this year, the Supreme Court reversed Boardman by siding with the parents.
In the case, a group of Muslim and Christian parents sued the Montgomery County, Maryland, school board over a policy that would not allow parents to opt their children out of the classes. Boardman denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction that would have reinstated a previous policy that allowed for opt-out.
Boardman ruled that mere exposure to ideas contrary to religious beliefs doesn’t constitute a burden on religious exercise, and “that is not indoctrination.” Boardman also wrote that “a constitutional violation is not likely or imminent” and thus “the plaintiffs are not likely to suffer imminent irreparable harm” if the injunction wasn’t granted.
In her ruling, she said the school board was concerned too many students would opt out.
“The school board was concerned that permitting some students to leave the classroom whenever books featuring LGBTQ characters were used would expose students who believe the books represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation,” Boardman wrote. “The school board believed that would defeat its ‘efforts to ensure a classroom environment that is safe and conducive to learning for all students’ and would risk putting MCPS [Montgomery County Public Schools] out of compliance with state and federal nondiscrimination laws.”
3. Birthright Citizenship Ruling
In February, Boardman imposed a nationwide preliminary injunction against the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. She determined the order conflicted with longstanding legal precedent.
Birthright citizenship is the view that anyone born in the United States, even a child of illegal immigrants, is automatically a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
Under Trump’s order, federal agencies would not recognize citizenship for U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen.
On Sept. 26, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the merits of the case.
4. Ruling Against DOGE
In February, Boardman also sided with the American Federation of Teachers, a union, to block the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing information from the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education regarding student loans.
DOGE was established as a White House office to identify government waste, fraud, and abuse.
Boardman issued a temporary restraining order after the union and other plaintiffs in the case argued that federal agencies should not have granted DOGE access to records with personal information. This was the case of American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent.
Boardman determined DOGE access could violate the 1976 Privacy Act by granting “sweeping access” to the office.
In August, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court injunction and allowed DOGE and the Treasury Department to proceed.
5. Democrat Donor
Boardman appears to have been a modest political donor to Democrat candidates before she became a judge.
In October 2007, she was listed as contributing $500 to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, according to Open Secrets, which tracks money in politics. Open Secrets listed her employer as Hogan & Hartson, a private law firm, at the time of the Clinton donation.
In June 2008, Boardman is listed as giving $300 to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama and another $200 to Obama that August, according to Open Secrets. Open Secrets listed her employer as the federal public defender.
6. ‘Grave Threat to America’s Energy Security’
In August 2024, Boardman sided with environmental lobbying groups to block oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, now the Gulf of America.
Groups such as the Sierra Club sued to block an opinion the National Marine Fisheries Service issued to authorize the drilling. Boardman sided with the environmental groups and determined the agency underestimated risks of oil spills and violated the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Energy Workforce President Tim Tarpley said the ruling was a “potentially grave threat to America’s energy security and economic prosperity.”
“This misguided ruling could shut down oil and gas operations across the Gulf of Mexico and jeopardize hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity,” Tarpley said.
The post Kavanaugh Assassination Plotter’s Lenient Judge Has History of Controversial Rulings appeared first on The Daily Signal.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
