Much of the decision in U.S. v. Nixon is about a turf war.

The president says that the courts have no jurisdiction in an argument between two members of the executive branch (Nixon and the special prosecutor). Therefore, the case can never come to trial because it's just not legitimately try-able. Plus, the president is the one who owns the executive privilege, and the courts can't decide what evidence he has to produce.

Burger patiently cites all the relevant case precedent and claims that it's the court who decides what information is privileged and what isn't. Because they decided that the issue can be tried in court, then they're able to make sure that all the relevant evidence is disclosed so there can be a competent prosecution and a fair trial for the defendants.

"We have our job and you have yours," Burger essentially says. The executive has veto power, and we don't; the legislative branch makes the laws and we can only determine their constitutionality. The courts, not the president, decides how a trial must proceed. This was a situation where the separation of powers doctrine worked spectacularly to do what s was designed to do: prevent the abuse of power by any one branch of government.

Was this really about executive privilege and lack of jurisdiction? Probably not. Nixon was hindering the prosecution of the seven guys indicted for Watergate offenses because he knew what was in his tape recordings and wanted to suppress it. Otherwise, why wouldn't he want to help out the special prosecutor in getting to the bottom of the Watergate scandal? It's called obstruction of justice and abuse of power, and that's just what the House of Representatives thought when they presented their Articles of Impeachment.