House, as is their right, asked that the decision by the panel (three judges appointed by the full court to hear the case) be “vacated” (thrown out) and brought before the entire court (“en banc” in legal jargon). The full DC court granted the motion, so now the case will be decided by the full court-all of the judges-rather than a three judge panel. Makes it more likely that a decision in favor of the House position will be handed down.

CurtEastPoint

(18,664 posts)

15. Thank you!

Reply to maui902 (Reply #14)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:29 PM

Mar 2020

iluvtennis

(19,875 posts)

21. Me too...thank you. nt

Reply to CurtEastPoint (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 06:58 PM

Mar 2020

question everything

(47,537 posts)

4. Explanation, please? I am often confused with legalese. Thanks

Reply to MelissaB (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:05 PM

Mar 2020

pat_k

(9,313 posts)

9. See above

Reply to question everything (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:09 PM

Mar 2020

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13089527

question everything

(47,537 posts)

11. Thank you.

Reply to pat_k (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:11 PM

Mar 2020

stillcool

(32,626 posts)

10. from ABC

Reply to question everything (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:10 PM

Mar 2020

https://www.abc27.com/news/us-world/politics/appeals-court-orders-new-hearing-in-mcgahn-subpoena-case/

WASHINGTON (AP) — The full federal appeals court in Washington, DC, said Friday that it will take up the House of Representatives bid to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to appear before Congress

The decision gives new hope to House Democrats who want McGahn’s testimony before the November elections. Arguments will be held April 28.

The order comes just two weeks after a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that judges have no role to play in the subpoena fight between the House and President Donald Trump over the testimony of high-ranking administration officials.

Friday’s order throws out the earlier ruling.

question everything

(47,537 posts)

12. Thanks.

Reply to stillcool (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:11 PM

Mar 2020

uponit7771

(90,364 posts)

5. K&R

Reply to MelissaB (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:05 PM

Mar 2020

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,869 posts)

6. Some good news for a change! Or at least potentially good.

Reply to MelissaB (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:05 PM

Mar 2020

sakabatou

(42,176 posts)

13. Here's hoping it's ruled that people can't arbitrarily not comply with a congressional subpoena

Reply to MelissaB (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:19 PM

Mar 2020

Volaris

(10,274 posts)

20. Wouldn't that be nice?, for the Rule of Law to actually matter again?

Reply to sakabatou (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 06:22 PM

Mar 2020

hughee99

(16,113 posts)

23. At least when Dems are running congress, anyway. n/t

Reply to sakabatou (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 07:09 PM

Mar 2020

leftieNanner

(15,156 posts)

16. I would like to think that this is good news

Reply to MelissaB (Original post)

Fri Mar 13, 2020, 05:30 PM

Mar 2020

But even if the entire Appeals Court NATIONWIDE decided that McGahn had to testify, The Asshole In Chief will just push it up the food chain to HIS Supreme Court. They will not comply.

Sorry, I must have a bad case of Friday the 13th and Trump Exhaustion.