« Mitchell on Trump | Main | How to Take Action if Judge Eagles Handles Greensboro Case »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It sounds like your political observer is Hartzman. But believe it or not, the definition of "conflict of interest" isn't "any relationship disliked by Hartzman." He has no earthly idea what a conflict is, because he sees them everywhere. He doesn't see dead people. He's haunted by false and imagined conflicts of interest.

In fact, the term has a meaning under the law. And as near as I can tell, the definition also isn't "when a judge lives in a city affected by her ruling."

Your opinion here is so ill-informed that you would definitely benefit from talking to an actual attorney about this. Talking to Hartzman will only rot your brain... more.

You guessed wrong. Of course, in Greensboro, a conflict is not a conflict. Partiality is impartiality. That's the way it is here.

The issue under federal law, however, is whether her impartiality might be questioned. And without a doubt, it might be.

No, the issue is whether it might reasonably be questioned, and that's a very different thing. Questioning by random idiots on street corners and right-wing blogs isn't necessarily reasonable, no offense.

Given the fact that Kay Hagan, who recommended Eagles for the judgeship, is part of the same political crowd that filed the suit, her impartiality is reasonably questioned.

Also, she lives in Greensboro, where there has been a massive media initiative by the News and Record to oppose the change; and to rile up the local population against it. There have been dozens, if not hundreds of articles and pieces on the matter in the local media. It is reasonable to be concerned that Eagles has formed her own opinion, and that might impact her impartiality.

Andrew, I should note that YOU are proving the point made by the person I spoke with recently. You would not recognize a conflict if it smacked you in the face.

One need only look at her public voting record as well to throw up the flag of "reasonably partial"....

This probably won't come as a surprise to you:


Now that the AG has announced that he won't defend this lawsuit, the NCGA is the only party remaining that could mount a defense. According to this article, Judge Eagles will first have to rule that the GA has standing to do so. I would think they do, but again, IANAL.

Maybe not Andy but you act as if you are ANAL retentive

The comments to this entry are closed.