Congressman Chip Roy has dropped a political bombshell by filing articles of impeachment against a federal judge over a shockingly light sentence for an attempted assassin.

In a nutshell, Roy is targeting U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman for sentencing Nicholas Roske, who attempted to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, to just eight years in prison despite federal guidelines suggesting far harsher penalties, as the Daily Wire reports.

Let’s rewind to 2022, when Roske, a 29-year-old who now identifies as Sophie, meticulously planned a politically charged assassination of Justice Kavanaugh. The motive? To replace Kavanaugh with a Biden appointee and block potential rollbacks on gay rights and abortion access.

Attack on SCOTUS justice planned

For months, Roske researched Kavanaugh’s private residence and gathered weapons for the sinister plot. Yet, in a twist, Roske surrendered to police outside the justice’s home before carrying out the act.

Fast forward to the sentencing on October 3, and the courtroom drama intensified. Facing a potential life sentence under federal guidelines, with prosecutors pushing for 30 years, Roske got a mere eight-year term from Judge Boardman. That’s a staggering 22-year gap from what was recommended, raising eyebrows across the political spectrum.

Judge Boardman’s reasoning? She openly considered Roske’s identity as a transgender woman during sentencing, musing aloud about whether this should factor into the decision.

Gender identity issue sparks sentencing debate

“Let’s talk about the fact that Ms. Roske is a transgender woman … Should I take into consideration at all that Ms. Roske is transgender?” Boardman asked during the hearing. With all due respect to personal struggles, many conservatives argue this focus on identity politics has no place in a courtroom dealing with attempted murder.

Prosecutor Coreen Mao pushed back hard, insisting that Roske’s transgender status shouldn’t sway the sentence. Still, Boardman referenced a Trump-era executive order on transgender prisoners, noting Roske would serve time in a male facility and citing this as a factor in her leniency. Is this justice, or a misguided attempt at social engineering?

Boardman even acknowledged the harsh conditions Roske might face, stating, “When I sentence her, I take into account that she is a transgender woman who will be sent to a male facility.” Fair point on prison challenges, but does that justify slashing decades off a sentence for plotting to kill a Supreme Court justice?

Political backlash ensues

The fallout was swift and fierce, with Roy leading the charge for impeachment. He didn’t mince words, declaring that Boardman “deserves to be impeached for her absurd eight-year-sentence.”

When a judge prioritizes personal ideology over equal application of the law, Roy argues, it’s a dangerous precedent that could leave more criminals walking free.

Republican heavyweights like Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton have joined the fray, with Cotton proposing legislation to curb the role of gender identity in sentencing decisions.

Clearly, the right sees this as a wake-up call against what they view as progressive overreach in the judiciary.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to appeal what she calls an “insufficient” sentence. It’s a rare moment of unity among conservatives: this ruling doesn’t just miss the mark; it’s a full-on detour from justice.

Family dynamics, courtroom reflections

In court, Roske’s family dynamics came under the spotlight, with discussions about a lack of acceptance for Roske’s identity. Roske’s mother claimed to have attended support group meetings and expressed a newfound commitment to supporting her child.

While family reconciliation is heartening, critics question if personal matters should weigh so heavily in a case of this magnitude.

Judge Boardman seemed moved by the family’s journey, suggesting the ordeal might have brought them closer. But let’s be clear: attempted assassination isn’t a therapy session, and justice shouldn’t hinge on emotional subplots.

As this controversy unfolds, the core issue remains -- should a judge’s personal views or a defendant’s identity shape sentencing in such a grave crime? Congressman Roy and his allies say no, and they’re pushing hard to ensure the judiciary sticks to blind justice over trendy social considerations. With an appeal looming and impeachment on the table, this case is far from closed.