Threats are empirically effective---they shift judicial perception
Mark 18 [Alyx; Ph.D. in Political Science from George Washington University and Professor at Wesleyan University specializing in government; 2018; “Blurring Institutional Boundaries: JUDGES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THREATS TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE”; Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 1; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/695743; بلال]
Our judge respondents show strong support for a more nuanced view of the threats the judiciary faces. We learn that an overwhelming majority of judges (85%) believe that proposals that contain provisions to threaten the integrity and independence of the judiciary are most concerning. Of these, nearly half of judges (43%) are most concerned about congressional efforts to slash budgets and salaries within the court system, while others described concerns about judicial-retention reforms and congressional oversight. Only a small number of federal judges we interviewed (7%) cite provisions to alter judgemade policies as most concerning. Moreover, many of the judges we talked with mentioned that the mechanism underlying their concerns is the view that institutional threats like court curbing are asymmetric responses to judicial action; in other words, they are disproportionate in nature.