Federal judges have reported an alarming increase in threats against them as former President Donald Trump intensifies his criticism of the judiciary. This rise in hostility includes incidents where unsolicited pizzas have been delivered to judges' homes, often under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of Judge Esther Salas, who was tragically killed in a targeted attack in 2020.

During a recent discussion among judges regarding these threats, District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. shared that he has received threatening calls and unwanted pizza deliveries linked to his rulings against Trump’s policies. Other judges, including John C. Coughenour and Robert S. Lasnik, recounted similar experiences, with Lasnik highlighting that pizzas were sent to both his home and those of his adult children after he spoke out against attacks on judges.

Judge Salas expressed concern over the escalating nature of these threats and called for a reduction in inflammatory rhetoric from political figures like Trump, suggesting it invites harm towards judges. She noted that U.S. Marshals have reported over 100 cases of "pizza doxing" targeting federal judges since 2024.

The conversation highlighted broader issues surrounding judicial safety and the impact of political discourse on public perception of the judiciary. Judges from both parties acknowledged feeling vulnerable due to increased hostility fueled by political narratives that demonize their work.

Salas emphasized that this situation is not just random acts but rather a coordinated attack on judges, urging for more support and protection for those serving on the bench amid rising tensions within political discourse.

Original article

The article provides an insightful look into the rising concerns regarding the safety and well-being of federal judges, particularly in relation to the hostile environment fueled by political discourse.

Actionable Information: While the article does not offer specific steps or instructions for immediate action, it does highlight the need for increased support and protection for judges. It suggests that political figures should reduce inflammatory rhetoric, which could potentially de-escalate the situation.

Educational Depth: It provides a comprehensive understanding of the issue, explaining the recent rise in threats, the specific tactics used (such as "pizza doxing"), and the impact on judges from both parties. The article also delves into the historical context, referencing the tragic killing of Daniel Anderl, which adds depth to the discussion.

Personal Relevance: The topic is highly relevant to the general public as it concerns the integrity and safety of the judicial system, which is a cornerstone of any democratic society. It affects the public's perception of justice and the rule of law, and it also highlights the potential risks judges face, which could impact the willingness of individuals to serve in such roles.

Public Service Function: The article serves a public service by bringing attention to a serious issue and providing a platform for judges to voice their concerns. It does not, however, offer direct safety advice or emergency contacts.

Practicality of Advice: The advice to reduce inflammatory rhetoric is practical and achievable, although it may be challenging to implement, especially in the current political climate.

Long-Term Impact: By raising awareness and advocating for change, the article contributes to a potential long-term solution, which could lead to improved judicial safety and a more respectful political discourse.

Emotional/Psychological Impact: The article may evoke a range of emotions, from concern for the judges' safety to frustration with the political climate. However, it also provides a sense of hope by highlighting the judges' resilience and their call for action, which could inspire readers to engage in positive change.

Clickbait/Ad-driven Words: The article does not appear to use sensational language or clickbait tactics. It presents the information in a factual and balanced manner, focusing on the experiences and concerns of the judges.

Missed Opportunities: While the article provides a comprehensive overview, it could have benefited from including more specific examples of how judges can protect themselves or how the public can support judicial safety. Additionally, providing resources or contact information for concerned citizens to take action would have been a valuable addition.

"This rise in hostility includes incidents where unsolicited pizzas have been delivered to judges' homes, often under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of Judge Esther Salas, who was tragically killed in a targeted attack in 2020."

This sentence uses strong words like "rise in hostility" and "targeted attack" to create a sense of danger and fear. The use of the word "tragically" adds an emotional tone, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation. By focusing on the delivery of pizzas, it highlights a specific action that may be seen as a form of harassment.

The text evokes a range of emotions, primarily centered around fear, concern, and vulnerability. These emotions are expressed through the judges' accounts of threatening incidents, the use of the word "alarming" to describe the increase in threats, and the judges' calls for support and protection. The strength of these emotions varies, with some judges expressing more intense fear and vulnerability due to the direct threats they have received, while others highlight their concern for the overall safety of the judiciary.

The purpose of these emotions is to create a sense of urgency and empathy. By sharing their personal experiences and emotions, the judges aim to humanize themselves and their colleagues, showing that they are not just impersonal figures of authority but individuals who feel the weight of these threats and the impact of political discourse on their safety. This emotional appeal is a powerful tool to gain support and understanding from the public and potentially influence political figures to take action.

The writer employs several persuasive techniques to emphasize the emotional impact of the situation. One notable strategy is the use of personal stories and anecdotes, such as the mention of Daniel Anderl and the tragic attack on his father, Judge Esther Salas. This personal narrative adds a layer of emotion and tragedy to the broader issue, making it more relatable and compelling. The repetition of the word "pizza" throughout the text, especially in the context of "pizza doxing," also serves to emphasize the absurdity and invasiveness of these threats, evoking a sense of unease and discomfort.

Additionally, the writer employs a strategy of comparison, contrasting the judges' experiences with the political narratives that demonize their work. This comparison highlights the judges' vulnerability and the potential harm that can arise from inflammatory rhetoric, further emphasizing the need for change and protection. By using these emotional and persuasive techniques, the writer aims to steer the reader's attention towards the judges' plight, encouraging a reaction of empathy and a desire for action to address the safety concerns of the judiciary.