Federal appeals court rules Trump administration can’t end birthright citizenship [deltaMinutes] mins ago Now
Day: October 3, 2025
In their latest emergency order, the justices on the high court paused Obama-appointed District Judge Edward Chen’s September ruling that the Trump administration wrongly terminated an 18-month extension of temporary protected status (TPS) for migrants from Venezuela.
More than 1,000 illegal aliens in Illinois have been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol officers as part of Operation Midway Blitz, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday.
More than 1,000 illegal aliens in Illinois have been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol officers as part of Operation Midway Blitz, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday.
Legal Insanity and the Presidency – Google Search google.com/search?num=10&new…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 3, 2025
Legal Insanity and the Presidency – Google Search google.com/search?q=Legal+In…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 3, 2025
Legal Insanity and Presidential Fitness
Legal Insanity and the Presidency: An Examination of the Standard and Public DiscourseThe question of whether a president can be deemed “legally insane” involves a complex intersection of legal standards and political realities. Legally, the term “insanity” has a specific definition within the criminal justice system that is not synonymous with a medical diagnosis of mental illness. There has been no formal legal proceeding in which Donald Trump’s sanity has been adjudicated, and therefore, he has never been found to be legally insane.
The concept of legal insanity is primarily used as a defense in criminal prosecutions.1 The standards for determining legal insanity vary by jurisdiction but generally fall into a few categories:
The M’Naghten Rule: This is the most common standard in the United States.2 To be found not guilty by reason of insanity under M’Naghten, a defendant must prove that, at the time of the offense, they were suffering from a “disease of the mind” to the extent that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or if they did know it, they did not know that it was wrong.3
The Model Penal Code (MPC) Test: This standard, adopted by a number of states, holds that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, they lack the “substantial capacity” to either appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.4
The Irresistible Impulse Test: Used in some states, often in conjunction with the M’Naghten rule, this test absolves a defendant of criminal responsibility if they were driven by an “irresistible impulse” to commit the crime, even if they knew it was wrong.5
It is crucial to understand that these standards are applied in a courtroom setting, with extensive psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony. They are not metrics for casual or political assessment.
Public discourse surrounding Donald Trump’s mental state has been extensive, with a wide range of opinions expressed by mental health professionals, political commentators, and the general public.6 Some mental health professionals have publicly offered opinions on his psychological fitness for office, often citing behaviors and speech patterns as evidence for various diagnoses.7 However, these long-distance assessments are ethically controversial and are often viewed as a violation of the “Goldwater Rule,” an ethical guideline from the American Psychiatric Association that discourages psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures they have not personally examined.8
During his presidency, Donald Trump’s physician stated he was in “excellent health” and that he “aced” a cognitive screening test known as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).9 This test is designed to detect mild cognitive impairment but is not a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and does not assess legal sanity.
In summary, while there has been significant public and professional debate about Donald Trump’s mental fitness, the question of his legal sanity has never been formally addressed in a court of law. The standards for legal insanity are specific to criminal defense and have not been applied to him. Therefore, there is no legal basis to declare him “legally insane.”
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 3, 2025
The Twilight Zone is as eerie as it is thought-provoking, and we rank the creepiest moments of the CBS series, including Season 5’s Talky Tina.
Legal Insanity and the Presidency:
An Examination of the Standard and Public DiscourseThe question of whether a president can be deemed “legally insane” involves a complex intersection of legal standards and political realities. Legally, the term “insanity” has a specific definition within the criminal justice system that is not synonymous with a medical diagnosis of mental illness. There has been no formal legal proceeding in which Donald Trump’s sanity has been adjudicated, and therefore, he has never been found to be legally insane.
The concept of legal insanity is primarily used as a defense in criminal prosecutions.1 The standards for determining legal insanity vary by jurisdiction but generally fall into a few categories:
The M’Naghten Rule: This is the most common standard in the United States.2 To be found not guilty by reason of insanity under M’Naghten, a defendant must prove that, at the time of the offense, they were suffering from a “disease of the mind” to the extent that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or if they did know it, they did not know that it was wrong.3
The Model Penal Code (MPC) Test: This standard, adopted by a number of states, holds that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, they lack the “substantial capacity” to either appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.4
The Irresistible Impulse Test: Used in some states, often in conjunction with the M’Naghten rule, this test absolves a defendant of criminal responsibility if they were driven by an “irresistible impulse” to commit the crime, even if they knew it was wrong.5
It is crucial to understand that these standards are applied in a courtroom setting, with extensive psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony. They are not metrics for casual or political assessment.
Public discourse surrounding Donald Trump’s mental state has been extensive, with a wide range of opinions expressed by mental health professionals, political commentators, and the general public.6 Some mental health professionals have publicly offered opinions on his psychological fitness for office, often citing behaviors and speech patterns as evidence for various diagnoses.7 However, these long-distance assessments are ethically controversial and are often viewed as a violation of the “Goldwater Rule,” an ethical guideline from the American Psychiatric Association that discourages psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures they have not personally examined.8
During his presidency, Donald Trump’s physician stated he was in “excellent health” and that he “aced” a cognitive screening test known as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).9 This test is designed to detect mild cognitive impairment but is not a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and does not assess legal sanity.
In summary, while there has been significant public and professional debate about Donald Trump’s mental fitness, the question of his legal sanity has never been formally addressed in a court of law. The standards for legal insanity are specific to criminal defense and have not been applied to him. Therefore, there is no legal basis to declare him “legally insane.”
x.com/maddenifico/status/197…
g.co/gemini/share/7c53e2f09f…
–— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 3, 2025
The Boston Red Sox season ended with New York Yankees rookie Cam Schlittler dominating their offense in Game 3.