Altho this is quite true- however in normal colloquial speech, when people say “Impeach Trump” they mean remove from office, not just “indict” in the House. We all know that it is a two step process but it is shortened to “Impeach”.
And yes, altho I am no fan of Warren, I am quite sure she knows how the 25th works.
The 25th could actually work, regular Impeachment would likely not.
Okay - here’s why I think she’s not quite clear on the subject: why bother invoking it if it would result in anything other than Trump’s immediate, and permanent- removal from office, which won’t happen because Trump has the power to return to office pretty much any time he wants as long as at least 34 Senators back him up on it?
So you think that since there is no guareentee that the House will vote in favor of impeachment, the only explanation for her statement was that she doesn’t understanding how it works?
That makes no sense.
There is value in invoking the 25th and having public hearings on it regardless of outcome. Essentially she’s saying that if his staff are that concerned, do the right thing and come forward. Do not protect us by quietly neutralizing him.
The process is as important as the outcome.
Especially since they would presumably be bringing with them evidence not just of petty acts of corruption, incompetence, and poor policy, but evidence that the continued presence of Trump in the Whitehouse is a danger to the United States.
This is it exactly. This is her entire quote, from CNN:
Everything past the first sentence explains her position, as ITD described it.
Oops, I missed that. I’ll subscribe to the throwaway political line idea.
If that’s the same thing as standard political hyperbole and hot air, then I’m with that too.
Which is not to say that she necessarily does know how the 25th Amendment works either. I wouldn’t be surprised either way - it’s not like people pay a lot of attention to the details of things like the 25th Amendment. But since it was a throwaway line/hyperbole/hot air anyway, it’s not like she put a lot of thought into it either. It sounded forceful and righteous, and expressed her general sentiment that people like that OpEd writer should do more than whatever they’re doing now, and that was enough.
She was a law professor for over thirty years. I’m certain she has paid a lot of attention to the details of the 25th Amendment.
So, nothing is ever worth doing unless it results in the immediate and permanent removal of Trump from office?
But I think it is far more likely that she is making a political point about the 25th Amendment, rather than a legal one. That’s not surprising, because she has also made arguments that the Vacancies Act didn’t apply to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which I don’t find convincing and courts so far haven’t liked either. But I think it is clear that she was using that issue to poke at Trump as well.
Shhhh, you’re going to blow my cover! 
Also known as the new SDMB motto.
To be fair, Warren was a professor of commercial law, specifically on personal finance and bankruptcy. While I’m sure she is reasonably well-versed in constitutional law it was not her professional focus.
In fact, there is very little Warren and other congressional Democrats can actually do other than make rhetorical statements about Trump’s manifest lack of fitness for the office. Warren is speaking to what should be done by these supposed ethical objectors, not an expectation of what they will do in practice. You can make the case that she’s saying this just to get attention to her message but that is actually what politics is about; stating a position in a way that garners public interest and persuading the electorate to the validity of her argument to influence future elections. That the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment is impractical and would likely result in a political meltdown if attempted is not lost upon her, I’m sure; she’s just making the point about why voters should not support people in the administration and members of Congress who have not taken action, i.e. Republicans writ large.
And to dispense with the false equivalency arguments, this is in no way the same as threatening to jail a political opponent or encouraging supporters to engage in violence against protesters. She’s promoting the legal if impractical invocation of a constitutional power in response to a recognition even by administration officials that Trump is unfit to wield executive authority.
Stranger
To be even more fair, though, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is two paragraphs long and can be easily understood by a reasonably clever middle-schooler.
So yeah, she can read and understand it juuuust fine.
Also, there is exactly ZERO jurisprudence on this amendment, right? It’s not like there is some huge volume of judicial rulings to be read to understand how the courts have interpreted it, since they haven’t.
Exactly this.
EW says there’s rules to follow when the cabinet and such doesn’t think the president is capable of doing the job. She said that these rules are spelled out in the Constitution and directed to people to the exact part of the Constitution where these rules are spelled out. She thinks people should be following these rules instead of making up their own rules as they go along.
The idea that this means she doesn’t understand those rules is beyond stupid.
It is on the coffee mugs now. However, the mugs never arrive, so I am not sure. 
Frankly I’m tired of the sophomoric meme that America is led by morons. Yes, we’ve had more than our share of the intellectually stunted in high places. Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin come to mind, and Ronald Reagan was a C student. And even by U.S.A. standards the moron in the Oval Office now is an aberration.
But these are exceptions. Even Gerald Ford graduated in the top 25 percent of his Yale Law School class. And Elizabeth Warren? Elizabeth Warren? I’ve no idea who That Don Guy is but I’ll bet six gallons of Johnnie Walker Blue that her academic credentials would run circles around his.
Of course I didn’t want to click on a thread with such a silly title. But it’s there, obnoxiously staring me in the face whenever I click to “Elections.” Will the Mods please move it to the Pit and/or change the title?
Will somebody kindly explain to Don Guy that top Senators aren’t as ignorant as he thinks they are?
OK, having seen that now I take back what I said. It wasn’t a throw-away line, but a reasoned response to the situation at hand. Thanks for giving us the full context, which was sadly lacking in the OP.
Yes, I now revise my position for the 2nd time and this is my new position. Good job to other posters for doing the work I should have done from the beginning!