Something that I cannot get out of my head as I watched Sen. Corey Booker walk away after holding the Senate floor for more than 25 hours yesterday was that not a single Democrat then objected to unanimous consent of the nomination of Matt Whitaker as ambassador to NATO, which passed 52-45.
Comments
First, there's a request for unanimous consent. No one objected. So then, they voted. The vote was 52-45. The vote passed.
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/unanimous-consent/
( do you think there are 52 democrats in the senate? )
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/unanimous-consent/
Reading more on unanimous consent, I guess my next question is - what would have transpired if one of the senators objected?
1/
2/
3/
The cloture motion was approved 49 to 42, w/ 9 not voting.
Subsequently, Whitaker was approved 52-45.
The unanimous consents were regarding scheduling the nomination and a quorum call pursuant to Senate Rule XII (4).
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/119th-congress/25/56
2. Unanimous consent is not the same as the final vote. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/unanimous-consent/ Third time explaining this this morning?
This is why we need to teach civics in this country.
• Committee
• Cloture - which allows the vote to go forward with simple majority
• Unanimous consent - allows the vote to go to the floor
• The final vote - Yes or no
But not a single Dem met the moment after pushing back Senate business for 25 hours by simply objecting to unanimous consent and grinding gears to a halt again. That's what I'm pointing out.