A federal judge has handed the would-be assassin of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh just 97 months behind bars — barely more than eight years — a sentence that is shockingly light given the premeditation and lethal intent documented in court. This is not a matter of policy disagreement or heated rhetoric; it was a plot to murder a sitting justice, and the punishment handed down falls far short of what prosecutors and the gravity of the crime demanded.
The Department of Justice has already signaled it will appeal, calling the sentence insufficient and warning that leniency in cases of political violence sends the wrong message to would-be domestic terrorists. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the U.S. Attorney’s Office urged the court to impose a far tougher penalty to protect the judiciary and deter attacks on public servants doing their constitutional duty.
Court records laid out chilling details: the defendant traveled across the country armed with a handgun, ammunition, zip ties and burglary tools, had researched methods and targets, and carried out a plan that only failed because law enforcement was nearby and the defendant ultimately called 911. The judge described the conduct as reprehensible but emphasized the defendant’s surrender, lack of prior convictions, and mental-health struggles when fashioning a lighter term. Those facts do not erase the threat or the chilling intent that was on full display.
Prosecutors had urged a sentence of at least 30 years, arguing this was a politically motivated act aimed at altering the composition and decisions of the Supreme Court — behavior they described in terms ordinarily reserved for terrorism. To many Americans who believe in law and order, the gulf between the recommended punishment and what was imposed looks less like justice and more like a judicial shrug. The country deserves a system that deters attacks on our institutions, not one that debates leniency while the risk to public officials grows.
Accuracy in Media president Adam Guillette blasted the ruling on Fox, calling the sentence a “joke” and demanding accountability for a decision that appears to coddle political violence under the guise of mercy. Guillette’s criticism captures a broader conservative fury: when the scales of justice tip toward excusing politically motivated mayhem, every citizen’s safety is diminished and the rule of law is weakened.
This case should prick the conscience of anyone who values the judiciary and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We cannot normalize travel with weapons and tools to the doorstep of a justice because a defendant later claims a breakdown or remorse; courts exist to punish and deter, not to set new precedents in permissiveness. Those who guard our Constitution deserve protection, and judges ought to send a clear message that threats against public servants will be met with the full weight of the law.
Conservatives and patriots have every reason to demand that the appeal succeed and that future sentences reflect the seriousness of politicized violence. If our system cannot defend the people who interpret the law, then every branch of government and every citizen is less safe — and the next attack may not end with an 8-year sentence. The time for tough, unwavering enforcement is now, before permissive rulings become an invitation to more bloodshed.
