3 ms·
The technically correct term is "approved by unanimous consent", which makes perfect sense. Just the media changing it.
by arrosenberg 5y ago
The technically correct term is "approved by unanimous consent", which makes perfect sense. Just the media changing it.
- andy_ppp 5y agoBut how is it unanimous? It literally is whoever was there (which is not all senators) and they did not actively approve of the motion (just didn't disapprove). I realise this is semantics but it seemed strange to me.
- orf 5y agoSeeing as the initial sanity check before going to a vote is “do nays and ayes both shout at the same volume?”, bills are often unanimously approved because “nobody shouted nay” rather than forcing a lengthy vote for every single motion.
- andy_ppp 5y agoSo if you were told the board of a company Unanimously Approved something, would it be secretly understood by you to mean there might be only a handful of board members present and that they didn’t actively agree to the motion, they were just playing with their phones or something and ignored it? All I was trying to say was I’m fine with it if this is understood to be how things are done in the US, but it’s not correct use of the terms unanimous or approved, certainly in the way they are used in day to day English.
- quesera 5y agoIt's not unanimous approval, it's unanimous consent. If you do not vocalize objection, you are counted as consenting. And you can certainly give consent to something you would not approve. It's semantics, yes, but the definitions seem to align also.
- returningfory2 5y agoEach senator is given advance notice of all bills that are proposed to be be passed using the unanimous consent procedure. This being passed meant that each senator affirmatively decided not to stop it. Their presence or otherwise in the chamber is not really relevant.