Consider the non-negativity condition $f(t) = t^2 {\Vert v \Vert}^2 - 2 t \langle u , v \rangle + {\Vert u \Vert}^2 \geq 0$. Where $u$ and $v$ are vectors, and $t$ being a real scalar.
In the process of proving the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality, one arrives at $4\langle u, v \rangle^2 - 4\| u \|^2\| v \|^2 \leq 0$.
I cannot figure out how one gets to the last expression. Please, be aware that I am not interested in the proof of the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality, but about the step regarding the discriminant. How does the discriminant come into this exactly ?
How does the discriminant emerge from the quadratic equation and why should it be less than or equal to zero?

This comes back to basic properties of quadratics. Imagine you have a quadratic function $$f(t) = \color{red}at^2 + \color{blue}bt + \color{lime}c,$$ where $\color{red}a > 0$. What we get is a parabola. Given $\color{red}a > 0$, we must have a "smiley" parabola: one that is concave up, and tends to $\infty$ as $t \to \pm \infty$.
Recall the quadratic formula: $$\color{red}at^2 + \color{blue}bt + \color{lime}c = 0 \iff t = \frac{-\color{blue}b \pm \sqrt{\color{blue}b^2 - 4\color{red}a\color{lime}c}}{2\color{red}a}.$$ The bit under the square root is the discriminant: $$\Delta = \color{blue}b^2 - 4\color{red}a\color{lime}c.$$ As we take the square root of the discriminant, its sign determines whether we get real solutions to $f(t) = 0$. In order for the square root to make sense in the reals, we need $\Delta \ge 0$. If $\Delta = 0$, then there is a $0$ to the right of the $\pm$, and so we get only one solution. If $\Delta > 0$, we get two different solutions. If $\Delta < 0$, we get none.
Let's illustrate these cases. First, here's a case where $\Delta > 0$:
Note: there are two roots. Next, where $\Delta = 0$:
Here, there is a single root. Finally, where $\Delta < 0$:
Here, there are no roots; the parabola lies strictly above the axis.
Now, let's suppose we have a particular quadratic $f(t) = \color{red}at^2 + \color{blue}bt + \color{lime}c$, one you know very little about, except for two things:
What can we conclude from this? This says something about the discriminant. We could have the parabola floating over the axis, like when $\Delta < 0$. We could even have the parabola just touching the axis, like when $\Delta = 0$. The only thing that we can't have is the parabola dipping below the axis and coming back up (creating two different roots) as in where $\Delta > 0$. So, from our assumptions, we get the conclusion that $\Delta \not> 0$, or equivalently, $\Delta \le 0$. That is, $$\color{blue}b^2 - 4\color{red}a\color{lime}c \le 0.$$ We deduced this just from knowing that $f(t) \ge 0$ for all $t$, and $\color{red}a > 0$. So, we've turned a family of inequalities $f(t) \ge 0$ for all $t$, into a single inequality just involving $\color{red}a$, $\color{blue}b$ and $\color{lime}c$.
This is what is happening in the proof. You have been given a quadratic: $$\color{red}{\|u\|^2}t^2 + \color{blue}{(-2\langle u, v \rangle)}t + \color{lime}{\|v\|^2}.$$ You know that $\color{red}{\|u\|^2} > 0$ (though, an assumption that $u \neq 0$ is necessary here) and you know that $f(t) \ge 0$ for all $t$ (because $f(t) = \langle tu - v, tu - v \rangle = \|tu - v\|^2$, which is non-negative by assumption). From this, we conclude that $\Delta \le 0$. Here, $\Delta$ is given by: $$\Delta = \color{blue}{(-2\langle u, v \rangle)}^2 - 4\color{red}{\|u\|^2}\color{lime}{\|v\|^2} = 4\langle u, v \rangle^2 - 4\|u\|^2 \|v\|^2.$$ Thus, $4\langle u, v \rangle^2 - 4\|u\|^2 \|v\|^2 \le 0$, as claimed.