Trump may have already been advised his declaration will not ultimately stand up. However, it appeared Trump was out of options to “save face” politically. At least now, he may have a chance to blame others for his failure to deliver on the wall after showing he “tried”. Our courts are part of our checks and balances and will likely follow our Constitution and precident over any political philosophy the justices may personally have. I’m sure they would take a dim view of any politician attempting to mess with the DNA of our country. Edit: Instead of messing with the DNA of our country, my post should read “Inappropiate use of executive power”.
Found your guy for the job GWB (he's below), because undermining a democracy and attempting a coup is totally level headed this guy:
So your hero and totally sane POTUS was out there knowingly COVID+ meeting gold star parents w/a novel virus that's killed millions in the early stages when we had nothing to combat it. Lying on interviews about how said parents "gave it to him", standing few feet away from a man in his late 70's yelling at him, chastising him about wearing masks. All of this while COVID+. Totally sane though right GWB?
I don't care if the President is Trump or Biden --as outlined by the American Psychiatric Association psychiatrists should never be pushing claims about an individual they never personally examined. It breaks all sorts of medical standards and is simply wrong.
You have an idea on your head based on nothing but your gist that somebody has to be "personally examined" to form a diagnosis, that's simply not correct when there is the greater good of the community/nation/world we all live on to serve. There are exceptions to most rules. Normal people think Trump is playing a role, its only partly true. Truly grasping and certainly seeing patients adversely affected by him they are inclined to warn the community of which they are a part and also at risk. The idea of "duty to warn" has been examined many times and it always lands on once a psychiatrist (or other therapist) believes a patient is a serious danger, they have to speak up. "Justice Matthew Tobriner of the California Supreme Court, in the now-famous Tarasoff cases, who created a therapist-specific version of the legal “duty to warn” of tort law, overriding the therapist’s ethical duty of confidentiality. Writing for the majority in his 1976 opinion, he declared that in “this risk-infested society we can hardly tolerate the further exposure to danger that would result from a concealed knowledge of the therapist that his patient was lethal.” " And they were correct, Trump was lethal to tens and likely hundreds of thousands. If he was in again, another disaster would unfold as the parts of him that are not an act will ensure that.
I would imagine psychiatrists need to "examine" a patient first hand because they need to hear the patient speak, so that they can try to understand what the patient thinks and believes. For the ordinary patient, with little directed and recorded speech available, that would of course require in-person examination. But for a bloviator like Drumpf there's far more than enough material to make an accurate diagnosis.