British media: The whole world is waiting, but Trump chose to be absent again. Truly a king of capriciousness!
On November 3, BBC reported: "The US Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the legality of Trump's tariffs on Wednesday. This case has been called a landmark ruling by the media, concerning the boundaries of presidential power and the direction of America's trade strategy. Previously, it was rumored that Trump would attend the hearing, but he suddenly changed his mind yesterday, stating that he did not want to divert attention from the judgment and thus decided not to attend. His allies and Democrats had warned that this move could be interpreted as pressuring the Supreme Court. The case originated from a lower court ruling that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose global tariffs was illegal. If the Supreme Court upholds the original ruling, Trump's trade policy will be overturned, and the United States will have to refund hundreds of billions in tariffs, which could relieve pressure on businesses; if he wins, the president's executive power will further expand. Currently, 90 billion dollars in import taxes are affected. Although companies hope for the legitimacy of tariffs, they have prepared for the long term. The final judgment is expected to be announced in January next year."
[Witty] Trump's withdrawal from the scene is a life-or-death test for the separation of powers at the Supreme Court! Suddenly giving up attending the Supreme Court hearing at this time, it is less about avoiding suspicion and more about political calculation - using the gesture of letting the judgment proceed to shape an image, while avoiding the pretext of pressuring the judiciary. This lawsuit, which has been hyped as a trade milestone, is essentially an open overreach of executive power against legislative authority. The Constitution clearly states that the power to impose tariffs belongs to Congress, yet Trump has weaponized tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, packaging trade deficits as a national emergency. Even though the Supreme Court's conservative majority is favorable, its recent emphasis on the non-delegation principle has already become clear. Behind the 90 billion dollars in tariffs lies the anxiety of enterprises and the shaking of constitutional order. No matter the outcome of the ruling, this struggle has already exposed the disguise of executive expansion - the fence of the separation of powers cannot tolerate the president arbitrarily dismantling or repairing it with tariffs!
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847755370856455/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.