Question about United States v. Nixon?

I know that it was a 8 vs 0 unanimous decision, and Nixon had to give up the tapes. What was the majority opinion of the justices? Were there any dissenting opinion? Why did one of the justices not participate, and did he have a opposing opinion?

Thanks

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The remaining judge recused himself (William Rehnquist) and no reason has to be given for that

    The unanimous decision held that the Supreme Court has not only the power established in Marbury v. Madison to rule a law invalid for conflicting with constitutional provisions but also power to decide how the Constitution limits the President's powers; that the Constitution provides for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    United States V Nixon Decision

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The majority opinion was written by then Chief Justice Burger. The opinion held:

    The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege

    in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.

    Associate (later Chief) Justice William Rehnquist recused himself and took no part in deciding the case. But I've not been able to find a reason.

    As for a dissenting opinion there was none sine the vote was unanimous.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • BruceN
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    There was no disent. All agreed that the Supreme Court could rule on Executive Privilege and that even the President could not withold evidence of possible criminal conspiracy.

    William Rehnquist recused himself. Although he did not state a reason, I speculate that because he was a Nixon nominee who had worked for Attorney General John Mitchell as his lawyer, and known Nixon (but was not especially close to him), He may have known things about Nixon or his cronies that could have given him the appearance of being biased or of violating attorney client privilege. But maybe he just didn't want to be seen as a traitor by the guy who appointed him.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    Us Vs Nixon

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.