It doesn't sound like she "shopped for a panel that would be sympathetic to her". She appealed to the panel which is authorized to handle appeals from the panel that defrocked her, and is authorized to overturn that panel's decisions. Doesn't sound any different than when somebody gets convicted in a trial court, believes the conviction was wrong, and appeals to the appellate court which has authority over that trial court.
It's weird though, that this higher panel voted almost unanimously to "re-frock" her, when that appears to be in explicit conflict with the official published law of the church. If the higher authorities in this church are mostly in agreement with allowing the ordination of practicing gays/lesbians, shouldn't they change the law? And if they don't think the law should be changed, shouldn't they uphold and enforce it?
She wasn't going to appeal but I think some lobbying was done to convince the panel to refrock her based on the technicality that she did not adequately prove that she was a lesbian which put her in violation of the law against homosexuals in the pulpit.
She's claiming a victory but it's like beating the worst team in the league via forfeit because their bus was 10 minutes late.