Originally Posted by Fox128i
It in no way changes the jurisdiction of the ADA, it (the UN treaty) was roughly based on the ADA. It just boggles my mind as to why anyone would vote no.
Well, I'd agree that it seems odd to vote against something that closely matches the existing ADA. Perhaps for me, the bigger question is why spend the time to conduct the vote at all (at least in the US senate; I can understand why other jurisdictions who have no ADA-equivalent should spend cycles on this as it may affect them).
If the US senate voting yes makes the same difference as voting no, which seems to be the case as far as I can tell (ie: no difference at all), why are they going thru the motions in the first place? It's not like they dont have bigger fish to fry, and it apparently doesnt affect how other countries choose to implement this initiative on their own soil anyways ?
That's why I'm confused.