Lot of people who have never had to abide by parliamentary procedure making up shit about what "unanimous consent" means and what the effect is.

It does not mean "this vote fails if we have a single objection."

It means "this is the fastest way to adopt a measure. I will call for unanimous consent, and if nobody objects, the bill is passed."

If someone objects, the bill then becomes subject to standard proceedings of discussion and an eventual vote.

Unanimous consent is a procedure to speed through things you think people will say, "okay, fine, let's do it."

Calling for unanimous consent forces the GOP to play their hand and demonstrate that they are the ones delaying.

Not trying for unanimous consent would mean instantly adopting a path that would be longer before the house voted. Trying for it means there's an option of having it done swiftly.

That's all.

A lot of people are making up some pretty wild stories about what it means without actually, you know, googling the term and reading about it.

The worst case scenario is Pelosi calls for unanimous consent and someone objects and we then proceed to the straight vote that you all say we should have.

Calling for unanimous consent adds MAYBE 5 minutes to the proceedings.

If it fails, you add five minutes. If it works, you save a few days.

That's what the procedure is.

If unanimous consent fails and she doesn't force a floor vote, then yes, definitely time for contempt.