Reposted by Kristin
Let me tell you, as a former staffer, piss poor staff work will get you *every* time 😂😂😂😂
Kristin
@kehf.bsky.social
684 followers 217 following 2.2K posts
she/her, LGBTQIA+ on the USA west coast. Plays Minecraft & Valhiem. Knitter, crafter, DIYer, Legacy Episcopalian.
![By “avoid[ing] the clear error standard of review for factual findings,” Op.
86 (Paez, J., dissenting), the panel legally erred and issued a decision
that conflicts with numerous decisions of this Court, the Supreme Court,
and other courts of appeals, see Fed. R. App. P. 40(b)(2)(A)-(C).
In addition, the panel’s decision implicates questions concerning
the separation of powers that are of exceptional importance. See Fed. R.
App. P. 40(b)(2)(D). If allowed to stand, the panel’s decision will
significantly limit judicial review of administrative subpoenas issued to
harass and intimidate those associated with causes disfavored by the
President, rendering meaningless the statutory restraints imposed by
Congress to limit agencies’ investigative power.
This Court should grant rehearing en banc to resolve the conflicts
created by the panel’s decision and to address the important questions
raised by these proceedings.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreiafit23lnpbvz7axgmfkaeafufjpf6v3r3wl7jrclphjhkfwgk2xa)
