Discussion between Barrett and Sotomayor ends speculation of a potential third Trump term as they address the 22nd Amendment controversy
In a series of public appearances and interviews, two Supreme Court justices have addressed the legality of a potential third term for President Donald Trump.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, confirmed during a Fox News interview that the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states a president can run only twice. However, she was careful with her words, declining to say directly whether the matter was "cut and dried."
Barrett's counterpart, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was pressed on the same issue during an appearance on ABC's "The View." Sotomayor, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, suggested that the matter is "not settled" because "we don't have a court case about that issue."
The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served four terms as president, states that a person cannot be elected to the office of the President more than twice. To date, no one has attempted to legally challenge the constitutionality of a third term for President Trump in court, and the issue has never been judicially decided.
President Trump has been teasing the idea of running for a third term, a move that could potentially break new ground in American politics. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is currently handling a flood of emergency cases dealing with Trump's efforts to consolidate power within the executive branch.
Justice Sotomayor, the court's senior liberal, reiterated her belief in the supremacy of the Constitution, stating that it is "settled law" and that there is nothing greater than the Constitution of the United States.
Both Sotomayor and Barrett are promoting books and therefore appearing at public events and sitting for interviews. Barrett has, for the most part, voted with Trump in these cases, while Sotomayor has regularly dissented.
The potential for a third Trump term remains a topic of debate, with the Supreme Court's stance on the matter yet to be fully clarified. As the nation waits for further developments, the significance of these public statements from two of the Court's justices cannot be understated.
Read also:
- Tobacco industry's suggested changes on a legislative modification are disregarded by health journalists
- Uncovering Political Ad Transparency: A Guide to Investigating opponent's Political Advertisements in the Digital Realm
- Elon Musk praises JD Vance's debate performance against Tim Walz
- Right-wing Israeli minister supports controversial plan for West Bank settlement expansion
