I guess the difference here is thinking there's an "answer" to the Superman question. For me, the movie presents it as it should: there is no answer, right or wrong. That's not how the world operates. And Superman as a presence is a paradigm shift. That's one of the central themes. Different people coming to terms with this new world. The "they will stumble, they will fall, but in time they will join you in the sun" line is basically the arc they were building towards.
also, the senator especially wouldn't be laying out a case for Superman. Her goals were wanting to force accountability on him either through the US Government or as an asset for them. Her whole deal is trying to manage this new world through that government oversight lens. And that's a troublesome view to have Superman act as a lackey for the US government (which is another refutation of TDKReturns).
There can definitely be an answer to that question, or at least an argument about what Superman's impact on the world is. He's an immense game changer in their reality, as it would be in ours. Particularly since this Superman is fine going all Authority on dictators, in contrast to typical incarnations of Superman in other media who don't touch topics like that because they don't want the audience to think too much about the implications. Snyder, however, wants to do this with this Superman, except unlike the Authority, who routinely delved into the good and bad about the implications he didn't want to dig deeper then surface level, so he could pretend this Superman has the same impact as regular Superman does. Which is a shame, since that is an intriguing take on the concept had it been done like Warren Ellis rather than Michael Bay. The world operates by reacting and analysing to events which can evolve, which we got part of in B vs S, rather than the full picture of what Superman means to the world. This is all ignored in the last act so they can fight Doomsday in a pointless fight to display the latest special effects technology.
The movie referenced him occasionally as a game changer, but all we got was surface detail nothing with meat on it. The movie barely touched on the events MOS had, they never tackled the subject over Superman killing people was right or not. When we do meet Superman again, he's perfectly fine with that decision only now he's content to extend that to humans. Which negates his stance on Batman, why does he hate him so much? He's a killer just like Superman he just doesn't have super-powers, they're very similar when their rivalry is shaped with contrast in other media like the Timm-Verse and the comics. Wonder Woman never comments on any of this.
The senator had a case that Superman "is" and that is the extent of her thoughts on that context, which is dropped after she says it. Supposedly she's for his accountability with the government, which is an argument which I'd love to have watched for a few minutes with her and Superman going back and forth on whether he should be accountable to the government - we didn't get that, the room exploded as soon as he showed up. He briefly argued with Lois about hating humanity then it's dropped entirely from the movie, no resolution.
DKR's argument about Superman being a tool of the government isn't addressed in the movie since he never does it. The government is framed as being fairly ok, aside from Luthor being able to comically corrupt everything around him and get away with it. But that says more about Luthor than the government. The argument against Superman is that one day he'll snap and destroy humanity, we have more evidence in this in the film than Superman doing this being abused by the government. That's a theme which is thoroughly explored in Suicide Squad.
