'Squad' Democrats vote against condemning 'barbaric' Hamas attack on Israel

[Valletta]

Congress CANNOT discipline members for protected speech; if made on the floor of the chamber all members have carte blanche to espouse ANYTHING, per the Chamber’s own rules.

Who said they could be disciplined for protected speech? Members of Congress can say what they want in Congress about legislation, they are NOT exempted from discipline OR PROSECUTION for what they do outside of Congress, whether on social media or at events or at protests. Senator Chuch Schumer SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED for threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices.

 

[Pommer]

Who said they could be disciplined for protected speech? Members of Congress can say what they want in Congress about legislation, they are NOT exempted from discipline OR PROSECUTION for what they do outside of Congress, whether on social media or at events or at protests. Senator Chuch Schumer SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED for threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices.

Both Schumer and Church’s opinions are protected speech, as evidenced by neither getting prosecuted.

 

[Valletta]

Both Schumer and Church’s opinions are protected speech, as evidenced by neither getting prosecuted.

Not getting prosecuted is an example of the two-tiered system of justice in our country. Schumer is a Democrat.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Congress CANNOT discipline members for protected speech; if made on the floor of the chamber all members have carte blanche to espouse ANYTHING, per the Chamber’s own rules.

Not necessarily agreeing, but can they be censured?

 

[expos4ever]

I really must object to what appears to out-and-out misrepresentation. And it is happening a lot in these "Hamas" theads. It is very hard to believe that these "squad" members "support the butchering of babies and the extermination of Jews" - as far as I can tell, there is little to no evidence to this effect in this thread.

Facts matter. What does House Resolution 771 actually say?

It appears to say this (I added bold):

(1) stands with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists;

(2) reaffirms Israel’s right to self-defense;

(3) condemns Hamas’ brutal war against Israel;

(4) calls on all countries to unequivocally condemn Hamas’ brutal war against Israel;

(5) calls on Hamas to immediately cease these violent attacks and safely release all living hostages and return the bodies of deceased hostages;

(6) mourns the over 900 Israelis and 11 Americans killed and over 2,600 others wounded in Hamas’ unprovoked attack on Israel;

(7) reaffirms the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security, including through security assistance in accordance with the 2016 U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding;

(8) urges full enforcement of the Taylor Force Act (title X of division S of Public Law 115–141; 132 Stat. 1143) and other restrictions in United States law to prevent United States foreign assistance from benefiting terrorists, directly or indirectly;

(9) condemns Iran’s support for terrorist groups and proxies, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad;

(10) urges full enforcement of United States sanctions against Iran to prevent Iran’s funding of terrorist groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and

(11) stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence support.

Here is the key nuance that is being conveniently overlooked: one can, of course, utterly condemn Hamas without "standing with Israel". It is entirely coherent to be reviled by what Hamas has done and yet be critical of the specific way Israel has responded. And if one is of such a mind, it is entirely reasonable to not support the motion.

 

[Pommer]

No necessarily agreeing, but can they be censured?

For expressing an unpopular opinion?
No, this is a core First Amendment issue.