I was genuinely stunned by how thin and unpersuasive his analysis was here. It's not an attempt at original public meaning, but rather, very weak textualism that he overclaims.
He is a smart guy. What is he doing here?

I meant this as a reply agreeing w/ @jadler1969 on @judgeluttig's remarkably weak op-ed, arguing that impeachment will be invalid.
The textual argument is silly; thin textualism is less appropriate than originalism here; he offers no historical evidence. https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1349348091334455300?s=20

*He acknowledges the historical evidence against him:
Sen.Blount 1797 impeachment (already a confusing debate about officers v. member of Congress, yet he was out of office), and Belknap 1876.
@judgeluttig offers no historical evidence for his view here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

It just struck me that Luttig has an obvious problem with his argument:
ALL disqualification votes happen AFTER an officer has already been removed (by the first vote).
There is no such thing as disqualification of a *sitting* officer.

I suppose Luttig would say that his problem is not the disqualification vote, but with the Senate trial and removal of an already-out-of-office former officer. Fine.
But Adler's and Vladeck's points about sudden resignations preventing all disqualification still stand.