With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of judicial speech. See In re Eastburn, 121 N.M. 531, 538, 914 P.2d 1028, 1035 (1996). “These limitations, however, do not extend to the publication of language that does pose a serious and imminent threat to the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in general and of the judge in particular.” Id. In determining whether the endorsement clause in our Code of Judicial Conduct has breached such constitutional limits, we must balance Respondent’s First Amendment right to comment on matters of public interest against the interest of the judiciary in regulating the speech of its judges to promote the appearance and reality of impartiality within the judiciary. See generally Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 150-54, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch.

A: holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern
B: recognizing the need to balance the states interest in fulfilling its responsibilities to the public the extent to which the speech in question involves a matter of public concern and the manner time place and context of the speech
C: holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern
D: holding that question whether employee speech is protected and concomitant determination whether it touches a matter of public concern are for the court and to be answered with reference to the form context and content of the claimed speech as revealed by the record as a whole
B.