Trump v. Vance
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
Last page of ruling abainst Trump:
4 TRUMP v. VANCE
ALITO, J., dissenting
the most exceptional cases.’” Id., at 692. There is no question that a criminal prosecution holds far greater potential
for distracting a President and diminishing his ability to
carry out his responsibilities than does the average civil
suit.
* * *
The subpoena at issue here is unprecedented. Never before has a local prosecutor subpoenaed the records of a sitting President. The Court’s decision threatens to impair
the functioning of the Presidency and provides no real protection against the use of the subpoena power by the Nation’s 2,300+ local prosecutors. Respect for the structure of
Government created by the Constitution demands greater
protection for an institution that is vital to the Nation’s
safety and well-being.
I therefore respectfully dissent.
Re: 3:
7-2.
I think it was a close call. The future peril is that now local prosecutors will use this care as the wedge to subpoena future President’s. The future is litigious as far as the eye can see!
Let the leaking of grand jury proceedings begin!