Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, held the floor for more than an hour Tuesday as she went through the histories of several judicial nominees in the Clinton administration who were denied votes by the Republican majority, some because of secret "holds" put on nominations by a single senator.
"Which is better," Mrs. Feinstein asked, "a filibuster by 40 members on the floor openly declared, publicly debating an individual's past speeches, an individual's temperament, character, opinions? Or a filibuster in secret when one doesn't know who or why?"
-- Democrats reject Republican "compromise" on filibusters
The "compromise" (a reference to the title of the article) involved a vote of the blocked nominees after one hundred hours of additional debate. How exactly this is a "compromise" (in contrast to another offer by the Dems to agree to some but not all of the few blocked ... like one that served without a license to practice law) is unclear.
Losers.
---
For those who liked an article by David Cole on the 'Real Id' Act, or maybe even did not, I recommend David Cole's book Enemy Aliens, especially the final chapter on a "human rights" approach to the Bill of Rights.
As to the 100-0 bill that this is attached to deviously, a good discussion on the limitations of the prohibition of use of funds for "torture-lite" is found here.
In general, two things. (1) A war spending bill of this sort is NOT the proper place to attach this sort of legislation ... it should be freestanding and debated as such [of course, since the 9/11 Commission and others with some respectful pedigrees found aspects unnecessary and even counterproductive, this would be a problem for the proponents]. (2) The anti-immigrant measures concerning exclusion and deprival of due process at the end of the day are as or more important than the driver license material that is being highlighted.
But, as Cole notes, provisions just focusing on disfavored groups -- not the populace at large -- are more easily upheld.