The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New Details On Attempted Assassination of Justice Kavanaugh
From this criminal complaint, it seems that the defendant wanted to kill Kavanaugh to prevent him from casting decisive votes in Dobbs and NYS Rifle & Pistol.
More details have been released about the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh. From the Washington Post:
A man with a gun and a knife was detained by police early Wednesday morning near Brett M. Kavanaugh's Maryland home after making threats against the Supreme Court justice, according to federal officials.
According to a criminal complaint charging Nicholas John Roske with attempted murder of a federal judge, two U.S. Deputy Marshals spotted Roske get out of a cab in front of Kavanaugh's home at approximately 1:05 a.m. He looked at the marshals and then walked down the street. Not long after, Montgomery County got the call from Roske saying he was suicidal and came to kill Kavanaugh.
Montgomery County Police Department officers were dispatched and arrested Roske without incident while he was still on the phone with 911, according to the affidavit. In his suitcase and backpack were a Glock 17 with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, a tactical knife, a hammer, a screwdriver, a crow bar, zip ties and duct tape, along with other gear.After his arrest, according to the affidavit, Roske told police he was upset over the leaked draft of an opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion and also over the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Tex. He thought Kavanaugh would support looser gun laws. He decided to kill Kavanaugh and then himself, according to the police officer, thinking it would give his life purpose.
A reporter has also posted a copy of the criminal complaint:
NEW: Here's the federal affidavit against the man accused of trying to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Nicholas Roske allegedly flew from CA to DC. He took a taxi to Kavanaugh's Chevy Chase, Md. home.
Roske was found with a pistol, pepper spray, hammer, screwdriver, crow bar, etc pic.twitter.com/XJd5ZMWwrn
— Kevin Across America (@KevinLewisNomad) June 8, 2022
Here are screenshots:
From this complaint, it seems that the defendant wanted to kill Kavanaugh to prevent him from casting decisive votes in Dobbs and NYS Rifle & Pistol.
ROSKE then told the detective that he was upset about the Supreme Court draft decision regarding the right to abortion as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. ROSKE indicated that he believed the Justice that he intended to kill would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws. Roske stated that he began thinking about how to give his life a purpose and decided that he would kill the Supreme Court Justice after finding the Justice's Montgomery County address on the internet. ROSKE further indicated that he had purchased the Glock pistol and other items for purpose of breaking into the Justice's residence and killing the Justice as well as himself.
Release both opinions, right away. Do not delay another day.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You really think that this guy would have been less inclined to commit murder if Kavanaugh had already committed himself to the opinion he disliked?
Hey, lawyers. Are you enjoying these mass murders, this attempt on the life of a Justice? Thank the Supreme Court. It took over psychiatry to generate 3 jobs for each case. Now, he qualifies for involuntary treatment, instead of when he needed it. All suicides, half murders, all rampage murders are 100% the fault of the lawyer profession.
I would be curious about the legal analysis of this inchoate crime. He got out of the cab and walked away. That was the act. Where is the attempt line crossed?
The guy called the cops on himself. He was still on the phone to 911 when they arrived.
This story will be covered extensively to distract from the Democrat crushing bad news about the economy, the border, how our interests are being slapped around due to the weakness of this kowtowing President.
Did he bring his arsenal through checked baggage or did he buy them in strict gun control Maryland? Both places are real woke. I suggest no cash bail for this defendant.
Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
This is clearly incitement to violence, now being carried out by his woke minions. Schumer should be investigated by a Special Senate Committee on Insurrection.
Of course, these federal police have the guy because he called 911 on himself, and waited a long time for them to pick him up. He then confessed to everything and waived rights in writing.
One defense argument might be that he was obeying the orders of Chuck Schumer.
Seems like he'd have a pretty good argument that he abandoned the attempt. That said, there is also pretty good cause for civil commitment here.
Also time for RuthSentUs to be dealt with. They provided the address.
Great point about accomplice liability.
Conspiracy, General; don't forget conspiracy.
Chuckles Schumer, the entire Ruth gang, and this idiot.
(and possibly a few FBI guys?)
Well, if the opinion had already been issued, killing one of the justices wouldn't undo the decision.
*insert reluctant highly qualified 'condemnation' or snarky reply by leftists or outright disappointment in certain areas where they feel they can get away with showing their true feelings.
Kiss my ass, Amos.
No highly qualified condemnation here. Put the guy in prison for a long time.
It is discouraging that so many see political violence in partisan terms. Can't wait to condemn when it's by someone seemingly on "the other side," and qualified waffling or whataboutery otherwise.
There's plenty of that crap on both sides. ("The Jan. 6 guys were tourists.")
And then along comes Amos with this bullshit.
I'm tired of it. The first step to getting some sort of unity restored in this country is to stop the violence. This from Amos doesn't help.
Do you support removing Schumer from Congress for his actions in promoting violence against SCOTUS justices, like you supported impeaching Trump?
Why or why not?
I am glad this armed kook has been apprehended.
I am glad someone (reportedly) informed police of his lunacy.
I am glad he called police rather than shooting anyone.
I hope he is incarcerated for a long time; unhinged people with guns should be taken off American streets to protect the public.
I am glad AmosArch -- with all of the other gun nuts -- is on the other side of the culture war and the other side of history.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, as usual.
The left downplayed previous left wing murderers, the media buried the news, but here ... the would-be assassin was publicized before his cause was known, and it's too late now to bury the news. I wonder how they will distort this.
It will disappear almost instantly, like the Waukesha massacre.
WTF does the Waukesha attack have to do with anything?
The guy was a career criminal and a nut.
I'm shocked that California's strict gun laws failed to prevent this madman from getting a gun. /sarcasm
There are no strict gun laws anywhere in America.
I am relieved to see the Biden Justice Department is taking this seriously.
It isn't going to help anyone to release the opinions if they aren't ready. But I certainly hope the dissenters aren't filibustering their dissents for some political reason.
> filibustering
That's the one plausible "leaked by a Conservative" scenario i.e., to foil the progressive justices' plan to drop the opinion as close to the election as possible.
That said, imho, the more likely scenario is that everyone agreed to drop the opinion on the last day, so that the Justices/clerks and their families could clear out before the inevitable violence. But, if so, the Justices need to recognize that the leak changed that calculus dramatically.
Your insights concerning the operations of the Supreme Court are fascinating.
South Texas College of Law Houston grad?
Thoughts and prayers. Or do we talk about mental health now? Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, etc.?
Or is that not the discussion we're having?
Maybe we can tone-police "liberals" for not sufficiently disavowing a politically-motivated, would-be murder-suicider, while pushing for our own narrow political goals?
Mental health, since Progressives who try to kill conservatives are mentally ill, and do not in any way reflect the Democratic party or their policies. See, for example, the Alexandria ballfield shooting.
Here we go.
More of the crap.
You're a moron.
You've got a persuasive argument, and the delivery that matches.
Not an argument. Just stating facts.
Jerry B. is just a raving ideologue. No point troubling him with an argument.
That attack was far more of an "insurrection" than 1/6 could have prayed to be
"Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, etc.?"
Were the marshals who apprehended him not armed?
The marshals didn't apprehend him. The local cops who responded to his 911 call did. And sure, they were armed, but considering he was the one who called them, there's no reason to believe their guns had anything to do with him surrendering without incident.
"Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"
That is exactly what happened
He saw two deputies and aborted his operation. You would prefer he was successful?
Did I say that? Nope!
Just trying to get the spin right. So I guess it’s, “it’s fine that he had access to a gun and was able to fly across the country with it in order to assassinate a Supreme Court justice, because at the moment of truth he encountered two armed guards and only one entry point.”
Gee, it's almost as if letting any random person buy whatever deadly weapon they like isn't such a good idea...
Yep. you can cut your vegetables with a piece of printer paper.
The odds that a random person would commit murder are nil.
Given that the actual number of murders is larger than zero, that can't possibly be right.
Fair enough. The odds that a random person will commit murder are very low, about 0.0015% according to some sources I've seen. One person in 67 thousand, roughly.
But that's not quite zero. Just close enough to zero that you can rationally assume that any random person you meet is never going to kill anyone.
Do you know more about this case than me? Did he buy it legally? Did he pass a background check? Travel with it legally, i.e., declaring at airline check-in, etc.?
Who cares? He had a gun, and even if he didn't obtain it legally he must have obtained it from someone else who obtained it legally. One of the many reasons why random people shouldn't be allowed to own guns is that they can be stolen, or otherwise end up in the hands of criminals.
So how did he get a "tactical" knife and a Glock from California?
Hey, it’s not like he was trying to bring nail clippers or a full-size tube of toothpaste.
Why do you ask? Shouldn’t everyone have one?
A Glock? Some people don't care for them I hear.
Of course I'm asking how he got it across the country in a plane.
Seems like danger to justices weighs a bit light in Blackman's scale. He looks more worried that politically partisan opinions he longs for could get blocked by murder, unless they get announced quick. Seems typical, when you think about it. When have right wingers ever cared first about victims of gun violence?
When they call for executing those who commit gun violence.
By the way, ever heard of restorative justice? Which side pushes it?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2022/06/05/more-scary-tales-of-the-great-stupid-new-yorks-restorative-justice/
- Jack Marshall
When they call for executing those who commit gun violence.
Killing someone means you're causing more violence, not less.
Jack Marshall is a self-proclaimed ethicist and lawyer, who neither understands ethics nor law. Really, his definition of "unethical" is "This annoys me."
If some loon is successful you can guarantee that the Democrats will not pause in installing someone they want using the justification that the recent Justices installed on the Court were all invalid.
The Democrats are going to install a few more justices in any event.
Why not just accept that the culture war and the marketplace of ideas have consequences?
Why would the Democrats who control the presidency and the senate need an "excuse" to appoint someone to a vacant office?
Is it not astonishing that someone who believes the Constitution's "penumbras" and "emanations" protect a right to an abortion simultaneously claims that the same Constitution permits law enforcement to arbitrarily deny persons the right to keep and bear arms?
Right. If you think it's OK to "find" (more like invent) fake rights, why not read the real ones out of the Constitution?!
You mean like how conservatives always skip over that "well-regulated" bit?
You mean how liberals always forget that it applies to the militia, not the right?
You can find the story on the NYT's home page if you scroll down far enough (keep going, you'll get there eventually, unless you stop to read about Kelly Clarkson or Jared Kushner). WaPo has a brief headline buried in small type among a bunch of other stories. You know, just like they'd handle it if someone tried to murder Ginsburg or Sotomayor.
"This headline is insufficiently sized" has got to be the most nit-picky allegation of media bias I've ever seen.
Volokh Conspiracy fans are known for insisting upon rigorous compliance with professional publication standards!
Carry on, clingers.
What I'd like to know is where was the FBI. It appears local cops caught him. The FBI will send a boatload of agents to arrest some elderly Trump advisor in his home, but can't catch someone intent on assassinating a Supreme Court justice? I thought they were pivoting to domestic terrorism.
US Marshals deterred him by their mere presence.
The man apparently called 911 and told the operator of his plan. It makes sense that local cops were dispatched, and the FBI subsequently joined the investigation.
compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
https://www.steynonline.com/8162/theory-of-the-case
What is the comparison supposed to illustrate?
That civilian gun ownership is bad?
So, you can't find a pic of this perp anywhere on the internet, and his race isn't mention in any news report I've seen. What does that indicate to you?
What does it indicate to you?
I didn't have any trouble finding a picture.
Goddamned white supremacist violence rearing its ugly head again.
The situation brings to mind In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).
The Attorney General had assigned U.S. Marshall David Neagle to serve as a bodyguard for Associate Justice Stephen Field while Field rode circuit in California. Field was accosted by David Terry, who had previously threatened Field who had found him in contempt of court, on the platform of a California train station. Neagle shot and killed Terry. Both Neagle and Field were charged with murder by the state (though Field was later released).
A federal habeas petition made its way to the Supreme Court. The precise issue before the Court was, as there had been no statute authorizing the Attorney General to appoint marshals to protect Supreme Court justices, could Neagle be said to have acted legally within the scope of his duty? By a vote of 6-2 (with Field recused), the Court ruled in favor of Neagle, essentially extending a "necessary and proper" clause to the executive branch.
We are informed that legislation to extend security to Supreme Court justices is currently stalled in Congress. It would seem the Attorney General need not wait for such legislation if he were inclined to actually do something.
As a historical side note, David Terry had served as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court from 1857-59. Terry resigned his position after shooting and killing U.S. Senator David Broderick in a duel. Terry was acquitted at his murder trial when the presiding judge insisted the trial begin before any of the state's witnesses had arrived.
Terry would be succeeded as Chief Justice by none other than Stephen Field, some thirty years before their paths would fatefully cross again.
Twenty years, not thirty. I was never great at math.
The Terry-Broderick duel occurred close to Lake Merced, in San Francisco. Oddly, I visited the site, which is commemorated by a landmark but is poorly maintained and difficult to find, about a week ago, when my wife and I were looking for a place to have a picnic. As I recall, the witnesses had difficulty getting to the trial on time because Terry had gotten a change of venue to Marin County, and they had trouble getting across the bay.
Since there were deputy U.S. marshals outside Kavanaugh's house, it would appear that the Attorney General has "done something".
Note, however, that the "primary role and mission" of the Marshals Service is to provide security for district and circuit courts, not the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 566(a). Security for the Supreme Court is handled by the Supreme Court Police, which is part of the court, not DOJ. The bill that the house Democrats inexplicably refuse to pass would expand their security function to include the family of the justices (currently their authority outside of the court is limited to protecting the justices, "official guest[s]" of the court, and court employees on official business).
Abortion rights supporters should condemn this unlawful attempt. The assassination of a jurist is morally equivalent to the assassination of a doctor who performs abortions. Each is reprehensible. The latter is a tactic practiced by abortion rights opponents. It should not be emulated by those of us who care about individual liberty.
If this was a right winger we would hear nothing except "the right breeds hate and hate turns to violence" from the media, with demands every single politician right of center from Congress on down to the local dogcatcher condemn it all. But here it is merely a footnote in the daily news. "Nothing to see here folks, move along...."
Ok, but he was on a plane and if he checked them he probably was in violation of Maryland law once he picked them up.
Put me on Mute User. You seem upset.
Jamaica has strict gun laws.
For example.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/2842.html
Bitterness? The mass murder of 100 million Americans by this toxic idiotic and evil profession? Bitterness is not the word.
Many on the right see a Globalist BLM Communist coming at them from every shadow.
many on the right came to the (to them obvious) conclusion
Many on the right come to what they deem obvious conclusions that are completely nuts. Ever heard of QAnon? And the election-stealyng lie? Soros funding the Great Replacement? etc.
Yeah, it's the digital equivalent of the ages-old "buried on the bottom of page C-36."
Many on the right are birthers, QAnon chuckleheads, racists, "stolen election" kooks, misogynists, superstitious gay-bashers, science-denying creationists, and gun nuts.
That's why the American mainstream has been beating the clingers in the culture war, and why educated, accomplished, reasoning Americans no longer care much about what movement conservatives think. The plan is to defeat the right-wingers, not persuade them, and it has been working for a half-century and more.
The left controls the FBI?
Yep, no elections stolen here - - - -
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/08/former-democrat-congressman-pleads-guilty-to-rigging-elections-in-pennsylvania/
I think the en banc 9th Circuit upheld the limit, but stayed enforcement pending cert review. I assume if SCOTUS had granted cert I'd have seen something about it here. On the other hand I don't recall seeing that they denied cert, but I could have easily missed that. In other words, beats me. Now I'm curious, so if you find out, please mention it.
Yeah, they do. They didn't used to, but they have for some years now. These days they control most of the bureaucracy regardless of which party nominally controls the Executive branch. During Republican administrations the bureaucracy obstructs, during Democratic administrations they leap to obey.