How we cite our quotes: (Section.Subsection.Paragraph) or (Section.Paragraph)
Quote #1
The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere, insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications. (IV.B.2)
The president claims that the he's protected by the separation of powers doctrine from the power of the judicial branch, even in a criminal case. This is pretty scary, if you think about it. Unless he's impeached, there's nothing anyone can do.
Quote #2
But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. (IV.C.3)
The Supremes are clear that the president's privilege isn't the only consideration in this case. There's those pesky issue of the rule of law and due process.
Quote #3
The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. (IV.C.7)
The Court cites an earlier case that stated that a court has no authority to subpoena the president's tapes without knowing for sure what is on the tapes. Unfortunately for Nixon, the special prosecutor did have a pretty good idea of what was on those tapes, based on testimony some White House staffers gave to the Watergate Committee. And it definitely wasn't about foreign affairs.
Quote #4
The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. (IV.A.2)
This is the Court reiterating Nixon's claim to absolute privilege of confidentiality. We just know this argument's going down.
Quote #5
If a President concludes that compliance with a subpoena would be injurious to the public interest he may properly, as was done here, invoke a claim of privilege on the return of the subpoena. (IV.D.1)
The Court isn't at all contesting the fact that the president has the right to challenge a subpoena on the basis of executive privilege. That's just not what was on the menu.
Quote #6
The need for confidentiality even as to idle conversations with associates in which casual reference might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen is too obvious to call for further treatment. (IV.E.3)
Again, the Court wants to convey that it completely understands a president's need to have conversations protected, even casual ones.
Quote #7
Since a President's communications encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of an ordinary individual, the public interest requires that Presidential confidentiality be afforded to the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice […]. (Opening.12)
Even though he's not above the law, the Court is saying it can't deny that you can't treat the president as if he's just a regular guy. If Shmoop admits to binge-watching The British Baking Show, nobody cares. If the president says it, it could cause an international incident.