1 Jul 2024 8:50 pm
"The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, holding that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."jerrab » 01 Jul 2024, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑ did biden sleep with stormy and blame trump?
----------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------For example, in United States v. Nixon,3 the Court held that President Richard Nixon was amenable to a subpoena to produce evidence for use in a federal criminal case. There, the President had argued that he was immune to judicial process, claiming that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution.4 The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, holding that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.5 The Court noted that the constitutional duty of courts to do justice in criminal prosecutions was counterbalanced by the claim of presidential immunity. To accept the President’s argument, the Court further reasoned, would undermine the separation of powers that was at the core of a workable government as well as gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.6Throughout the Watergate investigation, it was unclear whether the President could be subject to criminal prosecution prior to being convicted upon impeachment.7 The Court, however, resolved that courts may require the President to testify or produce documents in criminal proceedings.8 This principle dates to the earliest days of the Republic, when Chief Justice John Marshall presided as the Circuit Justice for Virginia over the treason trial of Aaron Burr. In that case, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that President Thomas Jefferson could be subject to a subpoena to provide a document relevant to the trial.9 Specifically, Chief Justice Marshall declared that, in contrast to common law privileges afforded the King of England, the President was not exempt from the general provisions of the constitution, like the Sixth Amendment, which provides the defense compulsory process.10
Well, it's a good thing today's ruling didn't contradict that finding, and didn't give Trump "immunity from judicial process under all circumstances".