Sen. Tom Cotton Calls for Investigation or Impeachment After Kavanaugh Attacker’s Sentence
Sen. Tom Cotton urged that the judge who sentenced Nicholas Roske, the man who tried to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022, be investigated or even impeached after Roske received an eight-year prison term. Cotton framed his demand around a concern that the sentencing did not reflect the gravity of the attack on a Supreme Court justice. This is a blunt call for accountability from a senator who believes the judiciary must answer to the public when sentences seem out of step with the crime.
The facts are simple to conservatives who followed the case: Roske planned an assassination, traveled with a weapon, and attempted to confront Justice Kavanaugh at his home. He was convicted and eventually sentenced to eight years behind bars, a punishment some on the right see as too lenient. That perceived disconnect is what drove Cotton to single out the judge and demand action.
Cotton’s message is direct and unapologetic: if federal judges hand down sentences that trivialize violent attempts on public officials, Congress has the duty to investigate. From a Republican perspective, this is not about vengeance, it is about equal justice and preserving the rule of law. The accusation that a Biden-appointed judge was soft on a clear threat makes the issue politically urgent for those who distrust partisan influence in the courts.
Impeachment of a judge is rare and serious, but it is a constitutional tool for addressing misconduct or gross breaches of duty. Cotton did not argue that the judge committed a crime, he argued that the sentence raises questions about impartiality and appropriate punishment. Republicans will point to institutional safeguards that should be used when the public loses faith in judicial fairness.
Critics will say that politicizing sentencing is dangerous and risks undermining judicial independence. That view has merit, and conservatives must balance the push for accountability with protections for judges from partisan retaliation. Still, when a judge’s decision appears to contradict common sense about a violent political crime, silence looks like consent and breeds distrust.
Beyond impeachment talk, Cotton’s demand signals a larger Republican agenda: tougher stances on political violence, stronger protections for public officials, and more scrutiny of judicial appointments made by the other party. This is a message designed to rally voters who want law and order and worry that elite institutions are soft on threats to democracy. It is also a practical play: raising the issue forces hearings, statements, and public records that could reveal more about the judge’s reasoning.
Legal experts will stress that sentencing follows federal guidelines and judicial discretion plays a role. Judges explain their choices on the record, and that transcript is the place to start for anyone who wants to challenge the sentence. From a conservative angle, transparency in that explanation is everything; if the rationale is weak, then the political process should respond.
There are clear procedural paths for those unhappy with a sentence. Appeals can challenge legal errors, the Justice Department can file motions if sentences are unlawful, and Congress can hold oversight hearings to demand explanations. Cotton is tapping into all of those channels by publicly urging investigation and impeachment. The GOP wants to use every lever to ensure sentences match the severity of the crime.
Republicans also see a cultural angle: when the judiciary appears lenient toward threats against conservative figures, voters conclude the system is biased. That perception matters politically and practically. Restoring confidence means demonstrating that violent attacks on public servants get firm penalties regardless of the target’s politics.
The Cotton push could have consequences for future judges and sentencing norms. If Congress sends a signal that certain sentences will invite investigations, judges may alter their calculus to avoid political fire. Critics will call that chilling, but supporters argue judges already face public scrutiny and must write opinions that can withstand political pressure, especially in high profile cases.
There is a narrow path forward that balances judicial independence with accountability. First, demand the sentencing record and rationale be made public in full. Second, allow normal legal avenues to run their course before jumping to impeachment. Third, if the record shows bias or gross misapplication of law, pursue oversight and, if warranted, disciplinary measures. That approach keeps the process legal, principled, and defensible.
Republicans will likely use this episode to push broader reforms: clearer sentencing guidelines for attacks on public servants, expedited procedures for cases involving threats to the judiciary, and tougher penalties for politically motivated violence. Those are policy changes that can pass Congress and shape future outcomes without relying solely on partisan impeachment fights. Policy, not just politics, is the long-term answer.
At the core of the debate is a simple question conservatives keep asking: who protects our institutions when those institutions seem to protect the wrong people? For many on the right, Cotton’s demand is not an attack on the judiciary itself, it is a call to restore public trust. That theme resonates in GOP messaging about accountability, law and order, and institutional integrity.
Whatever happens next, expect this issue to shape judicial confirmation fights and election-year narratives. Senators will use the case to question nominees, voters will use it to judge candidates, and activists will use it to mobilize supporters. On the ground, the fight is about whether violent political gestures get real consequences or symbolic slaps on the wrist.
The Cotton stance is a clear warning shot: Republicans will not quietly accept rulings they see as excusing political violence. They will demand explanations, push for reforms, and if necessary, pursue constitutional remedies. That posture will keep the matter alive until either legal channels satisfy concerns or political pressure forces action.
In the end, the larger conservative aim is straightforward: defend public officials, enforce penalties that match the crime, and hold judges accountable when their actions undercut public confidence. Cotton’s call for an investigation or impeachment is loud, polarizing, and intentional. It’s meant to force answers and change the conversation about judicial responsibility and the seriousness of attacks on our institutions.
