this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
60 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44734 readers
871 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I mean in terms of percentages.

And I don't necessarily mean three full terms. 2.5 terms or 2.1 terms or anything nontrivially more than 2 (like, 10 minutes more doesn't count) would qualify.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Stovetop@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Chance he runs for vice president and wins, with the presidential candidate promising to resign promptly, and is betrayed: 10%

For this one, it also depends on how the Supreme Court rules on the 12th amendment. That amendment states that anyone who is unqualified to be president is likewise unqualified to be vice president, but there is some uncertainty as to whether or not it only applies to people unqualified to be president or if it includes people unqualified to run as president.

I'd say 90% chance the conservative-stacked Supreme Court side with Trump because the conservative justices are originalists and the 12th's interaction with the 22nd was not intended when the 12th was written, but 10% chance they decide he's unqualified to be Vice President so as to keep the door closed for Dems who might try the same thing.

[โ€“] Zak@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

It's the wording of the 22nd amendment that makes this a possible outcome (emphasis added):

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice

It could have said "no person shall serve as president for more than two terms" or similar wording, but it does not. I agree with you that conservative justices are likely to use this interpretation.