Differing views are key---the Court will be more concerned about backlash and will adjust its behavior.

We also argue that our assessment of competing accounts should consider lawmakers’ calculations about the likelihood their messaging behavior leads to change on the part of the Court. In other words, individual lawmakers may Court curb in order to send messages to the Court itself, attempting to affect its behavior. Our reasoning here is rooted in the calculations that members of the majority make about the value of sending a message to the Court. We argue that members of the majority have a stronger incentive to Court curb when their party is distant from the Court because their proposals, as opposed to ones from the minority party, are more likely to reach the floor (Anderson, Box-Steffensmeier, and Sinclair-Chapman 2003; Cox and McCubbins 2002).6 Since the Court is particularly concerned about attention-generating proposals, which spark widespread backlash against the institution (Clark 2011, 77), majority-initiated proposals represent more credible threats to the Court's support due to majority-party agenda control. In other words, members of the majority party have an additional incentive to ramp up their threats against a distant Court because the judiciary sees threats from the majority as more credible, making it more likely that it will adjust its behavior as a result. We posit that majority-party members are comparatively more likely to Court curb than minority members when their party is distant from the Court due to the fact that the institution perceives these majority threats as more credible.