GOING BACK TO WILLIAM REHNQUISTS STANDARD OF REVIEW TO SECURE AN APPLICATION FOR STAY FROM THE SUPREME COURT

 My approach will intrigue the Supreme Court because it addresses the complaints from the trial judges they are being given no guidance from the Supreme Court as to when a party can secure a Stay of the trial court ruling from the Supreme Court. 

This is not complex.  The rule was always a modification of the rule used when granting a TRO.   The current Supreme Court does not want to explain themselves, so they abolished the well-established rule.

In this case Chief Justice William Rehnquist denied the Secret Service their request for a Stay [TRO].

It frustrates me to no end our inept news media in all their coverage of this issue never mention the Rehnquist standard which guided the court for decades.

From Chief Justice Rehnquist:

The text of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's opinion refusing to spare Secret Service officers from having to testify before a grand jury in the Monica Lewinsky investigation:

"This case is before me as circuit justice on the application for stay submitted by the solicitor general, on behalf of the secretary of the treasury, Robert E. Rubin. Because several of my colleagues are out of the country, I have decided to rule on the matter myself rather than refer it to the conference.

"An applicant for stay first must show irreparable harm if a stay is denied. In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that denying a stay and enforcing the subpoenas pending a decision on certiorari would cause irreparable harm.

"The secretary identifies two injuries that would result from denying a stay: any privileged information would be lost forever and the important interests that the 'protective function privilege' protects would be destroyed. I cannot say that any harm caused by the interim enforcement of the subpoenas will be irreparable. If the secretary's claim of privilege is eventually upheld, disclosure of past events will not affect the president's relationship with his protectors in the future. On balance, the equities do not favor granting a stay.

"An applicant for stay must also show that there is a likelihood that four members of this court will grant certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals on the merits. This case is obviously not a run-of-the-mine dispute, pitting as it does the prosecution's need for testimony before a grand jury against claims involving the safety and protection of the president of the United States. I shall assume, without deciding, that four members of this court on that basis would grant certiorari.

CBSNews 1998