"While history thus provides some guidelines, the wide variation in form, purpose and effect of ante-Constitution bills of attainder indicates that the proper scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause, and its relevance to contemporary problems, must ultimately be sought by attempting to discern the reasons for its inclusion in the Constitution, and the evils it was designed to eliminate. The best available evidence, the writings of the architects of our constitutional system, indicates that the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply -- trial by legislature." United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. at 442.
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49 (1965) (quoting United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 449 (1946)).
Your irrelevant nonsense has nothing to do with any judicial review of an impeachment proceeding in the Senate.
However, you are invited to cite a SCOTUS case overturning an impeachment by the Senate, or indeed, any case where SCOTUS took jurisdiction to rule on the merits of any impeachment by the Senate. Any case from the last 230 years should do.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep381/usrep381437/usrep381437.pdf
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)
Respondent was convicted under § 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.[...]
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discourag-ing future conduct.
Section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 was a law. An impeachment charge is not a law. When sitting for an impeachment trial, the Senate sits as an impeachment court, not as a legislative body. They are not processing a piece of legislation, making law.
I note your heartfelt defense of a decision holding that one who belongs to the Communist Party has rights and can not just be removed from the executive board of a labor organization. It is good to see somebody is looking out for the Communists.