Asking the Question Rightly

This past January 30th I asked on my Facebook page whether or not Chief Justice John Roberts was subject to impeachment himself due to his refusal to follow the impeachment trial structure developed by the US Senate for President Trump's impeachment trial. It was my observation in subsequent comments that the Senate's Art. 1, Sec. 3 sole authority over Presidential trials, specifically to include being presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared to place Chief Justice John Roberts into unavoidable conflict with the requirements of the "Whistleblower Protection Act", as made evident by the specific question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul in conformance with the Senate's trial requirements.

Right constitutional issue, wrong question.

This having belatedly become more clear to me, my question now becomes; what method best permits this apparent constitutional conflict, the Senate's Art 1, Sec 3 absolute and sole authority to structure Presidential impeachment trials and the existing legal constraints the Whistleblower Protection Act imposes on the execution of such a trial, being argued before the remaining members (presuming Chief Justice Roberts concurs that recusing himself from the hearing and subsequent discussions is in the best interests of justice) of the US Supreme Court to arrive at a just resolution?

It should be openly acknowledged that impeachment is at least partially comprised of a political judgement component so as to arrive at a just outcome for both the individual being judged and the country as a whole. This being true, impeaching Chief Justice Roberts for deciding as he did during President Trump's impeachment trial would be unjust for him and the country. It is my entirely layman's understanding of US law that any portion of a legislative act being in conflict with the US Constitution makes the entire act "as if it never were". How then to best get this issue before the US courts to resolve this apparently unconstitutional aspect of the Whistleblowers Protection Act?