Under few political systems in the world could a head of state find himself locked in legal combat before his country's highest court as the proclaimed adversary of his own Government. Even by the distorted standards of Watergate, the case before the U.S. Supreme Court was unique in terms of law, politics and history. The President faced the lawful challenge of a Special Prosecutor he himself had appointed only seven months before. The prosecutor pleaded for a ruling to compel the release of evidence that might hasten Richard Nixon's removal from office by impeachment. The President, through his advocate, sought protection from such an order, plus the court's imprimatur on his very special view of presidential prerogatives.
It was a confrontation of high suspense because of the issues and because of the uncertainties of the climax. How broadly the court would rule, by what margin, and how the President would respond could only be guessed at week's end. Each of these elements could be crucial in the months ahead.
The specific legal questions before the court did not, of course, involve impeachment directly. As debated in a historic three-hour oral argument last week, the basic dispute was constitutional: Does the President have the power to withhold from use in the September conspiracy trial of six former aides 64 tape recordings of White House conversations—merely on his assertion that it is not in the public interest to release them? That extravagant claim of absolute Executive privilege, applying even to conversations that may have been part of a criminal conspiracy, had never been made to the court before.
There were signs that the answer from the Justices would be no. At week's end, it was understood, one Justice had already been assigned to write an outline for an opinion. That preliminary draft was to be used as a basis for discussing a final decision. Though not necessarily of one mind on all of the issues, the jurists plainly recognized both the constitutional importance and political explosiveness of the case. Therefore they were expected to try to find common ground for a unanimous ruling.
In a sense, the Justices as well as the parties involved have a stake in United States of America v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States. A panel that has been reluctant to break new judicial ground has now been asked to rule on a fundamental question involving the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the presidency. More immediately, the decision could force Nixon to yield evidence that might bolster the Special Prosecutor's conspiracy case against former Nixon aides and influence the eventual outcome of the impeachment process under way in the Congress by providing significant new evidence.
It is widely assumed that the tapes he is withholding are at least as harmful to his cause as the conversations he has already released—and little more is needed to convince all but his diehard supporters in Congress that he was part of the cover-up conspiracy. Although no one could be sure, the additional material might even provide evidence to satisfy Presidential Defense Attorney James St. Clair's narrow definition of an impeachable act: A serious, indictable crime. Few constitutional scholars agree with St. Clair's restrictive view; most consider such a broad offense as