Being President prior- for two terms IS an ineligible Constitutional definition— for either being a VP in the first place and President in the second. It’s not rocket science.
This is NOT something SCOTUS would need to address- it’s rather simple actually. And powers that be will not stand for this kind of S.American junta crapola.
If you were dealing with logic and common sense, you would be right. But you are dealing with politics and the law. In the case of the law, words have specific meanings that can cause some very illogical outcomes. In this case, the 22nd Amendment says nothing about how many years a president may serve - it only deals with how many times he may be elected. It also says nothing about how the VP is affected by the restriction on the president.
If the Dems tried to do this, they would argue that the 22nd Amendment prevents Obama from being elected president again, but does not prevent him from serving as president if he we to be elevated to the office by some other method than being elected president. There are several ways someone can become president without being elected to the office. First of course is by being elected vice-president and having the president leave office. Another would be being Speaker of the House or a cabinet officer and have everyone in the line of succession ahead of you die or resign. Anothe is one that already has happened in recent history - the VP resigns, another person is appointed VP and is confirmed by Congress, and then the president dies or resigns.
Under normal circumstances, I agree that Dems trying that would be ridiculous. However, they have shown there is almost no length to which they will not go to keep Trump out of the White House again. And I could see SCOTUS punting like they did in 2020 on the election cases, calling it a political issue.