That presumes too much power has been given to the judges and instead of a republic we are allowing the operation of a kritocracy. As for the presumed excess, that certainly is a matter of the imposition being cruel and there being a right to impose such a fine when no crime has been committed; also a simple matter of arithmetic.
Not so much a simple matter of arithmetic as it a matter of justice. Can DJT withstand such an (illegal) assessment? Yes, I think he can. He may be financially destroyed as a result, but he can do it.
The real issue is whether the penalty is ‘fair’, ‘equitable’, and ‘appropriate’.
There are different components driving each of those assessments.
Fair? How does it compare to other penalties in like or nearly like circumstances?
Equitable? Does the penalty weigh against the penalties levied against others in equivalent circumstances?
Appropriate? Does the penalty stand the scrutiny of the conditions of its imposition?