The Supreme Court can't repeal amendments. Amendments can only be repealed through the amendment process, which requires the approval of 2/3 of House and Senate + 3/4 of State legislatures.
It is true that the Supreme Court has wide latitude in interpreting the Constitution. But I don't see the Court interpreting "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" in any other way than what the plain text says.
GP already said that it won’t happen via repealing the amendment. So pointing out how difficult that is/should be isn’t a strong point.
> But I don't see the Court interpreting "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" in any other way
Simple… He wont be elected.
He’ll be appointed. Or some other word. Or elections will be suspended due to some “national emergency” and so “we’ll just continue with who we have right now in the interim”. This is not uncommon when democracies fall to authoritarianism.
The Republicans, and their courts and judges, have already amply demonstrated how disingenuous they’re willing to be.
The 14th amendment disqualifies people who have “previously taken an oath to support the Constitution.”
The Republican position is that Trump swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, but the word “support” was not in there so it doesn’t apply.
It is true that the Supreme Court has wide latitude in interpreting the Constitution. But I don't see the Court interpreting "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" in any other way than what the plain text says.