Start with the answer you get same old same old. Did you expect any other answer?
Now, define the question. Best done by linking to a post by a writer I respect, with whom this post disagrees. Please, however, remember this is but a single focused point of disagreement. Dan Burns has other solid things posted at his Annex site. Dan carries the theme to left.mn; here and here (in chrono order). With citing to that site, Timmer has a recent post on a different but in a way parallel matter, a post which looks at a Strib/Klobuchar item with caution (Timmer being another writer whose body of work is stellar). Timmer's ending about letting bygones be bygones carries truth, but where and how the line should be drawn is the devil's playground.
For those not following links, the question is specifically whether Cruz and Hawley should be made "examples" of limitation of speech by a lawmaker in the chambers in debate of an issue.
Each, Cruz and Hawley, has been put into the Senate by majority vote of respective state majorities - dumb as majorities can be, as a certainty, but still no question of voting irregularities to put either into the Senate; and the vote tallies were as they were and determinative of the will of people within the respective states.
Now. Why do it?
Running each rascal out would tar them as rascals, but we already know that. A resolution of disdain could be ginned up, passing on party lines, perhaps some Republicans wanting to join in censure of Cruz for being an ass in general, more so than Hawley.
But what's the gain? Each state is soundly deluded into Republican sentiment and if interim appointment is reached, do notice which party governs Texas and which Missouri, so you replace two devils you know with two you don't; business going on as usual; no single beat lost per a status quo that includes Biden-Harris mischief to come.
Stalin liked show trials to engender lockstep among the lesser-politician troops. Who in his/her right mind thinks any actual lockstep alteration beyond show of force, briefly, to in no way interrupt each party continuing to place partisanship ahead of citizenship, with both parties owned by money, not by the people, and thus serving ownership.
So - an attempted ouster of Cruz and Hawley, successful or not - should it be done? Crabgrass thinking - It would be a sordid distraction from constantly and stringly holding Biden's feet to the fire; which is all and the only thing worth trying, every inch of the way, moving forward. Eyes on the Prize.