Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
invocation of an “absolute, unqualified” executive privilege, withhold information in the face of subpoena orders. 418 U. S., at 706, 707. It did so, however, only after the party requesting the information — the special prosecutor — had satisfied his burden of showing the propriety of the requests. Here, as the Court of Appeals acknowledged, the discovery requests are anything but appropriate. They provide respondents all the disclosure to which they would be entitled in the event they prevail on the merits, and much more besides. In these circumstances, Nixon does not require -the Executive Branch to bear the onus of critiquing the unacceptable discovery requests line by line. Our precedents suggest just the opposite. See, e. g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681 (1997); id., at 705 ; Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 753. The
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the due process clause confers a right to direct a childs education
B. holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period
C. holding that the judiciary may direct appropriate process to the executive
D. holding that the shocks the conscience test was appropriate to evaluate whether executive conduct violated the substantive due process clause in a landuse decision
E. holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.