The standards are lower for judges. They merely need to maintain good behavior.
So being in bad health is bad behaviour?
“The missiles are flying. Hallelujah. Hallelujah.”-Gregg Stillson. Seriously, though. I agree with the poster who said that it’s likeliest to be used in the case of obvious incapacitating incident, natural or man-caused.
Article II, s 4 doesn’t seem to establish a lower standard for judges:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Judges are not civil officers. Notice Article II covers the executive branch.
Article III, Section 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The question is: how do you actually remove a judge for bad behavior? A bad legislator is removed by their respective house and is therefore not impeached (precedent set by the impeachment of Senator Blount) so when requests to remove John Pickering from the bench, specifically for drunkedness and the nebulous “misconduct” characterized but the House as a High Misdermeanors , the House decided to impeach him. This was 1803 and only the second federal impeachment so Congress was still trying to figure this all out. Of note, neither Pickering or his lawyer appeared in the Senate nor answered the charges. The only defense offered was Pickering’s son testifying that his dad was insane. So in effect it was a default judgement, Pickering was convicted and the precedent was set. More notably, in announcing the decision, the Senate declined to record if Pickering had actually committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
I think Senator White summed it up best towards the end of the trial
Mr. White stated that he believed Judge Pickering had practiced much of the
indecent and improper conduct charged against him in the articles of impeachment;
that he had been seen intoxicated and heard to use very profane language upon
the bench; that he had acted illegally and very unbecoming a judge in the case
of the ship Eliza, as charged against him in the articles, but that he was very far
from believing that any part of his conduct amounted to high crimes and mis-
demeanors or that he was in any degree capable of such an offense, because, after
the testimony the court had heard, scarcely a doubt could remain in the mind of
any gentleman but that the judge was actually insane at the time; and Mr. White
wished to know whether it was to be understood by the two last votes just taken
that the court intended only to find the facts and to avoid pronouncing the law
upon them; that they could have it in view to say merely that Judge Pickering
had committed the particular acts charged against him in the articles of impeach-
ment and upon such a conviction, to remove him, without saying directly or
indirectly whether those acts amounted to high crimes and misdemeanors or not;
for in the several articles they are not so charged, though judgment is demanded
upon them as such. Upon such a principle and by such a mode of proceeding good
behavior, he observed, would be no longer the tenure of office; every officer of the
Government must be at the mercy of a majority of Congress, and it would not here-
after be necessary that a man should be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors
in order to render him liable to removal from office by impeachment, but a convic-
tion upon any facts stated in articles exhibited against him would be sufficient.
It is for these reasons that I believe that Congress adopted the impeachment process from Article II in order to remove judges for bad behavior as per Article III with the standard only being bad behavior for judges, which would naturally also include high crimes and misdemeanors as well.
This article published by Congress acknowledges that there is some dispute, but comes down on the side that judges are subject to the same impeachment process as executive branch officers:
The meaning of the Good Behavior Clause has been the subject of long-standing debate. Some have argued that the phrase denotes an alternative standard of removal for federal judges beyond high crimes and misdemeanors that normally may give rise to the impeachment of federal officers.1 Others have rejected this notion,2 reading the good behavior phrase simply to make clear that federal judges retain their office for life unless they are removed via a proper constitutional mechanism. However, while one might find some support in early twentieth-century practice for the idea that the Clause constitutes an additional ground for removal of a federal judge,3 the modern view of Congress appears to be that good behavior does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct.4 In other words, the Good Behavior Clause simply indicates that judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will; removing a federal judge requires impeachment and conviction for a high crime or misdemeanor.
(My bolding)
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-2-1-3/ALDE_00000686/[‘impeachment’]
What if it’s only an unnecessary and destructive trade war?
It seems likely that Reagan was senile by the end of his presidency. It’s plausible that Biden was, too. It seems obvious that Trump is senile now.
I think it’s unlikely that the 25th amendment will ever be used to remind a senior president, so long as his advisors can prop him up on his feet and he can speak a little. But i think it would be used in the evening of a major stroke, coma, or other rapid-onset obvious gross disability.
Aside from Uncharted, there’s also Original Sin:
After a bit of consideration; this is very close to what I would have written now.
Maybe correcting the typos in that last paragraph 
I think it’s unlikely that the 25th amendment will ever be used to remove a senile president, so long as his advisors can prop him up on his feet and he can speak a little. But i think it would be used in the event of a major stroke, coma, or other rapid-onset obvious gross disability.
Maybe a bit of a hijack from the current conversation but still applicable to the 25th Amendment.
Let’s assume that Trump is eligible to run for Vice-President and his ticket wins in 2028. The plan is that the President will resign as soon as the Secretary of State is confirmed to accept his resignation. However, President Vance decides he likes being President so refuses to resign. Would Trump as VP be able to convince the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment as a political tool to have the President removed?
It really depends on how much the whole thing about the 2028 ticket is stage managed. If it’s like Putin / Medvedev and the new cabinet is all trumpers in on the plot / plan to oust Vance, then of course they’ll do what trump wants.
If this really is a Vance candidacy and presidency, then since they are Vance’s people of course they’ll do what Vance wants. Unless trump makes them a better offer.
Rather than thinking about dusty federal laws and mostly functional legislatures, think how it would play out as an episode of Game of Thrones.
Are they? Or are they Trump’s people that he tells Vance to appoint?
But how could Trump, in that scenario, force Vance to send appointments for Trump’s people to the Senate? If Vance selects his people for the cabinet, the VP can’t overrule him via Truth Social.
The only thing I could see that could force the issue in Trump’s favor would be for the stooge President-elect to die (possibly by “extreme prejudice”) after the election, at which point the 20th Amendment would make the VP-elect president.
How many human shields… I mean, children does Vance have?
I believe that, assuming for the sake of argument that SCOTUS does its job, they would just declare Trump to be ineligible, and the next person in the line of succession would become President.
Hence my opening sentence about whether this is a stage-managed fake Vance presidency or a real Vance presidency. Logically speaking either is possible. With very different results.
Practically speaking, the only way trump runs as VP in 2028 is if he isn’t already emperor, and it’s a totally stage-managed plan to have Vance resign as soon as it’s safely in the bag for trump to be the successor. If Vance tries to go off-script during any brief window of opportunity, there will be a plan B to ensure that isn’t a successful maneuver.
I can state that an effective plan B is a certainty because in order for trump to engineer being the VP candidate, an awful lot of other political pawns and knights and dominoes will need to have been carefully arranged to trump’s liking along the way.
Hey J.D. I made a list of cabinet officers for you.
Thank you Mr. Trump.
He’s not ineligible to become President. Just ineligible to be elected President again.
I concur. The key is will voters believe they are electing Trump as VP to loophole into the presidency.
“Thank you Mr. Trump, here’s the list I’ll be going with.”