Claiming to be trans isn’t exactly a Get Out of Jail Free card, but it’s close enough: the case of Nicholas “Sophie” Roske, would-be assassin
If you want to kill a SCOTUS justice, and get close enough to be charged with attempting to kill or kidnap a SCOTUS justice and have to plead guilty, it’s worth your while (if you’re a man, that is) to claim to be a woman.
That’s what would-be SCOTUS assassin Nicholas Roske did. To refresh your memory, he was the man (yes, man) who was arrested in 2022 outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s house by federal marshals who were there guarding it.
This was after the Dobbs draft had been leaked, but before the official decision was handed down. Roske’s goal was to kill three of the conservative justices on the Court, allowing Biden or Biden’s autopen to nominate leftist justices in their place and therefore change the course of SCOTUS history and decisions. You might call his plan an insurrection of sorts, and he did more than just write about it or talk about it. He did turn himself in, but apparently only because those marshals were there.
Prosecutors wanted him to get thirty years. Instead, he got eight – far fewer than many of the J6 defendants got. But it’s the reason for his lenient sentence that is so infuriating:
In a more than hour-long speech justifying the light sentence, [Judge] Boardman said “Ms. Roske came out to herself as transgender in 2020 but kept it secret. Ms. Roske’s sister came out as gay two years prior but Ms. Roske saw that their parents struggled to reconcile her sexuality with their religious beliefs.”
“I am heartened that this terrible infraction has helped the Roske family… accept their daughter for who she is,” Judge Boardman said. …
Boardman said “Any prison time is punishment for her. The length doesn’t need to be particularly long… unduly harsh conditions make a difference, too.” The judge continued, “She will be imprisoned in a male facility even though she is a transgender prisoner, pursuant to an executive order from the president. Before the executive order, that wasn’t the case.”
Gotta be sure to get those pronouns right. Roske, by the way, is not just a biological man; he looks like a man, sounds like a man, and has all the equipment of a man. It’s only because of Trump’s order that he will be incarcerated in a men’s facility, which the Biden-appointed judge apparently considers akin to cruel and unusual punishment.
Note that the judge was appointed by Biden. That is significant, because not only is she obviously on the left, but it was in order to get judges such as Boardman appointed to SCOTUS that Koske had planned to assassinate Kavanaugh et al. in the first place. Perhaps if he’d succeeded, Boardman would have been a SCOTUS candidate. She’s certainly seems to be no Trump lover:
Earlier in the hearing, Boardman lashed out at prosecutors and President Donald Trump, saying “Let’s not hide the fact that President Trump issued an executive order saying transgender inmates would be assigned to prisons with their biological sex.” The prosecutor replied that there was an injunction holding up much of the enforcement of that executive order, and the judge later state[d] that Roske could, in fact, get hormone replacement in prison, at least while the injunction was in effect.
And while we’re at it, here’s some further background on Boardman:
Boardman was born in 1974 in Silver Spring, Maryland, and grew up in Frederick, Maryland. She has been described as being of Palestinian descent on her mother’s side. She graduated summa cum laude from Villanova University in 1996 with a Bachelor of Arts. From 1996 to 1997, Boardman was a Fulbright Scholar in Amman, Jordan. She then attended the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was an editor of the Virginia Law Review.
The Senate vote to confirm her was narrow.
Also:
On August 24, 2023, Boardman denied a request for a preliminary injunction seeking to reinstate a Montgomery County School Board policy that allowed parents to remove their children from lessons involving books featuring LGBTQ characters. Plaintiffs claimed exposure to these books contradicted “their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, human sexuality, and gender” and that the lack of an opt-out policy violated their children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Boardman reasoned that “mere exposure in public school to ideas that contradict religious beliefs does not burden the religious exercise of students or parents”. The Fourth Circuit affirmed her decision by a 2–1 vote on May 14, 2024. On June 27, 2025, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, stating that the government burdens parents’ religious exercise when it requires their children to participate in instruction that violates the families’ religious beliefs.
I’d like to know how it was that Boardman was assigned the Koske case. Kavanaugh lived in Maryland at the time (and for all I know he still does), and so of course the offense occurred there. Maryland is deep blue, so perhaps any judge there who might have gotten the case would have had a similar profile.
NOTE: The “I’m a woman!” claim by male defendants and/or prisoners reminds me of the “I’m a woman!” claim by male athletes. It confers obvious benefits. You don’t see biological females claiming to be males in order to do sports, as far as I know, for obvious reasons, even though the female-to-male trans rate is far higher. Same for prisoners. For a woman to claim to be a man in order to get into a male prison (which, prior to Trump’s order, would have been possible) either never happens or is vanishingly rare, again for obvious reasons.
One Democratic judge after another reveals themselves to be unfit for the position they hold. Also: corruption in case assignments.
==
Another example, in case you needed one, demonstrating that judges should have no discretion over sentencing.
@Art Deco: Agreed. I cannot see why we allow judges any discretion over sentencing. The only job they should have is as referees during the actual trial.
No discretion in sentencing is too rigid and leads to a different kind of injustice.
The problem is the judges, not that discretion is allowed.
No discretion in sentencing is too rigid and leads to a different kind of injustice.
==
The problem is the statute in those cases.
Surprised to learn that the female to male ratio is higher than the other way, although that was the case in the one instance of which I am personally aware.
For what it is worth, that case was a late teen, or young adult and followed extensive counseling. It was also traumatic for familly members–particularly the Father who worshipped his daughter. But he accepted and supported in due time.
May not be appropriate, but in my ignorance I have occasionallly wondered if the ability to create sperm or eggs magically follows the ‘change’.
Art Deco:
It is impossible to write a statute that would cover all bases.
This is a big question i thought about in depth in law school and after.
Giving us another Trannie with a gun
Marxism is weighing a person against society and what they supposidly do to them. If society causes the person t o do the crime, it’s not their fault.
Skip:
Unless the crime is being on the right.
Looking at Boardman’s Senate confirmation vote, the two frauds, Manchin and Sinema, both voted to confirm her. They were about as conservative as Lurch.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00248.htm
It is impossible to write a statute that would cover all bases.
==
Judicial discretion doesn’t cover bases either, it just makes sentencing erratic.
Just found this on Doug Ross Substack 20 posts,
This explains,my point
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1974169125980393623
neo on October 4, 2025 at 4:04 pm said:
No discretion in sentencing is too rigid and leads to a different kind of injustice.
The problem is the judges, not that discretion is allowed.
________
If the problem is the judges, then why in the world should they have any input in sentencing? Maybe someone should, but why should it be the judge? I see nothing to indicate they’d be anyone to trust.
In reference to your response to Art Deco “It is impossible to write a statute that would cover all bases.” Well, yes. Plato says so in the Republic, and gives it as a reason for the Guardians to be so very carefully brought up. Granted, no one thinks he came up with the answer. But at least he tried. That’s more than we can say.
Personally, I’d exclude anyone with a law degree from that stage of the process; I think the two functions are incompatible.
The Left takes another step towards their destruction.
Eeyore:
Local judges mostly reflect the communities around them. Judges in blue communities are the ones we complain about. But apparently, for the most part, the citizens in leftist areas are mostly happy with them. District-shopping at the federal level is one problem, too – although this was not a case of district-shopping, since the crime did occur in Maryland. DC judges are a big problem, too.
In different communities there are varied qualifications for judges, plus they are appointed/elected in different ways. These things reflect local preferences. So there’s a great deal of variety.
But the fact that judges vary and most are far far from the Solomon level does not mean it would be an improvement to allow them no discretion in sentencing. Some flexibility is a good thing, because total rigidity also causes real problems that I think are worse in the end. Among other things, mandatory sentencing would place even more discretion in the hands of prosecutors who decide what charges to bring. With mandatory sentencing, there is more potential for injustice in the direction of sentences that are too long.
The US has for most of its history had flexible sentencing. See this:
I’ve never liked 3-strikes laws for that reason.
My remedy for the Roske case would be to still have discretionary sentencing for attempted assassination, but to raise the minimum in the range. It’s too serious a crime to have sentence of 8 years, but the judges still need to have some discretion.
Eeyore:
You’d exclude anyone with a law degree from which stage of the process?
Oldflyer: Back in the days when they were few, when rigorous controls were imposed such as you had to go for psychiatric treatment to get rid of any other problems before they would agree you were trans, it was mostly male-to-female.
Now that it’s chic, it’s mostly female to male
@neo:It is impossible to write a statute that would cover all bases.
This is a big question i thought about in depth in law school and after.
In case your thoughts don’t convince Art Deco and Eeyore, I’d point out that many others have thought about it too, which is why the courts of equity were set up hundreds of years ago. I don’t think most Americans who didn’t study law know about courts of equity, as the Federal government and most states don’t have separate courts of equity. I only know about them through reading nineteenth century novels such as Bleak House and through reading Blackstone’s commentaries.
There is more potential for injustice in the direction of sentences that are too long… I’ve never liked 3-strikes laws for that reason.
I actually do like “three strikes” laws, for that reason. The same is said about “broken windows” policing and we have all seen the good that does and I don’t see “three strikes” as any different. They are better than the alternative, in my opinion, even if, like “broken windows” policing, in some cases they seem to be disproportionate. It’s not really very difficult to go through life without felony convictions. The vast majority of crimes are committed by a small proportion of criminals and the public too has a right to justice, not to mention security.
Oldflyer wrote: “May not be appropriate, but in my ignorance I have occasionallly wondered if the ability to create sperm or eggs magically follows the ‘change’.”
If your question is not rhetorical, then no, “they” can’t produce sperm or eggs from the sex opposite to their birth sex.
====
I was musing on the Democrat wailing and gnashing of teeth which would follow a loony from the Right attempting to assassinate three Democrat SCOTUS Justices.
In case your thoughts don’t convince Art Deco and Eeyore, I’d point out that many others have thought about it too, which is why the courts of equity were set up hundreds of years ago. I don’t think most Americans who didn’t study law know about courts of equity, as the Federal government and most states don’t have separate courts of equity.
==
They largely disappeared during the 19th century due to inefficiency and forum shopping. See Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.
We have three strikes laws because lawyers are innumerate.
==
Assign a point value to each offense in the penal code and delineate a set of rules for the state sentencing commission to calculate point values from convictiions in thoer jurisdictions. Craft a formula which calculates a multiple by which a sentence is enhanced for which the point accumulation is an argument.
” . . . the female-to-male trans rate is far higher”: Since when? Since being “trans” became a social contagion among adolescent girls?
Historically, the male-to-female trans rate has been far higher. Indeed, the female-to-male trans rate has been vanishingly minuscule. And I believe that’s still the case.
The trans “movement” does not represent the trans population in general. It’s a bogus product of fake “trans” activists. One tell is how little it has to do with actual civil rights.
@neo: For a woman to claim to be a man in order to get into a male prison (which, prior to Trump’s order, would have been possible) either never happens or is vanishingly rare, again for obvious reasons.
Amusingly, Brittney Griner, the women’s basketball star who carried a marijuana CBD extract into Russia, was caught, sentenced then …
The Russians put her into a men’s prison. Maybe because she was so big — she is massive for a female — or maybe because they knew something Americans don’t.
There is a persistent rumor that Griner really is male.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/international-sports/brittney-griners-deep-voice-in-viral-video-shocks-fans-sparks-new-wave-of-gender-rumors/articleshow/121186775.cms
I’m just enjoying this conspiracy theory. But once you watch the embedded videos in this article, you may never be able to get that possibility out of your head.
Selfy, it was mostly rhetorical because I cannot imagine the process. On the other hand, there are so many unimaginable processes in play that there is always room for a minimal level of doubt.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to say that a person is transitioning to semi-male, or semi-female. Probably not socially acceptable. At any rate the issue is of little significance in America or Europe, since no one wants to bother with children anyway.
@Art Deco:They largely disappeared during the 19th century
Rather, the equity function has largely been assumed by other courts. Some US states have separate courts of equity. But the equity function is retained in all common law legal systems, regardless of what they call the court you have to go. Not limited to common law of course but I don’t know much about civil law.
Jarndyce vs Jarndyce was of course fiction, in the novel Bleak House which I mentioned. Fortunately, since they abolished the separate courts of equity, no lawsuit has ever dragged on pointlessly for years to the ruin of litigants and the profit of lawyers ever again.
@Oldflyer:Selfy, it was mostly rhetorical because I cannot imagine the process.
Look it up. It’s horrifying. For the MTF transition they essentially create a wound that cannot be permitted to heal, and which will close up if left to itself, and requires a lot of medical treatments to maintain in one state. For the FTM transition, they create an organ that does not look or function like the one it is intended to simulate. Irreversible infertility of course results.
Re: Transitioning
Plus it puts a big kibosh on orgasms.
For me that’s Full Stop. I’m not taking this bus.
Looks like the new hotness—Thou shalt MURDER—has been supplanted by the NEW new hotness:
Mutilation is a HUMAN RIGHT (and thus a virtue)!
File under: DO MUCH HARM… (well, as much as possible…)
Meanwhile….
“Emails show evidence gender transition providers for kids hid what they do, misled journalists;
“University of California San Francisco floats idea of suing Tucker Carlson before he reports anything after asking about its genital surgeries on minors, hides 9-year-old on puberty blockers in correcting New York Times on 8-year-old.”—
https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/emails-show-gender-transition-providers-kids-hiding-what-they-do
But of course they do…
(Their collective consciences wouldn’t have it any other way….)
neo on October 4, 2025 at 8:28 pm said:
Eeyore:
You’d exclude anyone with a law degree from which stage of the process?
________
Sentencing. I think the training is directly contrary to the intended goal. It is an essential purpose of lawyers to help their clients evade punishment. (And there are good practical reasons for that.) But after a conviction, you ask judges to go against their training when sentencing comes up.
Again, there is no reason to think a judge will be particularly qualified to sentence criminals.
Another way of putting it is that, as referees, judges are concerned with process. But at the level of sentencing, that’s not the case, it should be all about the results. It’s the gap between deontologists and teleologists in ethics.
And as always, there are occasions for each. But we forget to look at what they whole structure is for.
@Niketas: ” In case your thoughts don’t convince Art Deco and Eeyore, I’d point out that many others have thought about it too, which is why the courts of equity were set up hundreds of years ago.”
_____
Which is why I explictly cited Plato. (And yes, I have read Bleak House, and know about equity. I was interested in legal philosophy, and really considered law school, until I decided I’d rather have a chance of going to heaven when I die. And didn’t feel up to doing it Thomas More’s way.)
All our methods will be imperfect. And will go astray. Today, we are faced with a degraded judiciary. The first step to correcting that will be to look at what we expect from them. What is their purpose. Only after that can we figure out how to bring that about.
@Eeyore:All our methods will be imperfect. And will go astray. Today, we are faced with a degraded judiciary. The first step to correcting that will be to look at what we expect from them. What is their purpose. Only after that can we figure out how to bring that about.
I don’t disagree, but I would add that justice is an outcome and law is a process and we should never confuse the two.
To return to Bleak House which should be read much more widely than it is, an illustrative quote in regard to a character that seems likely to hang for a murder he didn’t commit:
Again, there is no reason to think a judge will be particularly qualified to sentence criminals.
==
Bingo.
On the Jay Jones thread, we veered slightly off that particular topic, and M J R linked this post in re the Jihadists in Britain.
One of the very astute points she makes is that the British supporters of Hamas and jihadist attacks are the same (or close enough) as the supporters of trans ideology, and the goal of both is destroying the “native” culture of the UK* and the safety (and lives) of Jews and the hitherto-normal citizens who reject the mutilation of children for genderists’ crank theories.
https://evebarlow.substack.com/p/meet-your-neighbor-jihad
After which they will turn on each other, and the transies are going to get a very rude awakening.
*Anywhere else in the world, any groups acting like the Muslims in the UK (and US, France, Germany, …) would be condemned as colonizing oppressors.
If the Left didn’t have double standards….