Here's the details.

The Immigration Bill before Congress has opponents on both the left and the right.  The bill is a compromise written to move immigration reform forward despite having many weaknesses.  There's plenty wrong with it no matter which side you're on.  The tired political cliche that it makes nobody happy and most everybody mad is true.  So Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) proposed an amendment to clean up the bill so that moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats would support it and the nation could move forward.

Yesterday, the Senate failed to muster the votes necessary to pass the Kyl-Kennedy immigration compromise three weeks after it was brought to the Senate floor. In our view, the seeds of this setback were sown when the compromise was first struck and the bill was laden with poisonous provisions such as attacks on family immigration, a temporary worker program that failed to meet the needs of workers or business, and punitive obstacles to lawful status for undocumented immigrants. The bill also eliminated all pretense of providing a safe and orderly future immigration flow to meet the nation's needs and accommodate the realities of international migration in an era of global economic, social, and technological integration...

The level of unacceptability of such provisions in the context of a comprehensive bill is a matter of degree. The Senators who fought on the pro-immigrant side did so with the highest of motives, hoping to provide some measure of protection for immigrant communities who are suffering unbearably under the current laws. But in the end, even as the bill became more restrictive and punitive, they were unable to win over the swing Democrats and Republicans who must be persuaded if any reform is to become law. This failure to attract swing Senators was not due to an unwillingness by Senator Kennedy or his allies to make even more concessions to restrictionists. Rather, the majority of Republicans chose to consolidate in opposition to virtually any bill that promised to provide a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants.
(Nat'l Immigration Law Center)

This amendment was S.1150.  On Thursday, a vote on a Cloture Motion was taken three times.  A cloture motion ends debate, i.e., a filibuster.  Norm voted not once, not twice, but three times to continue the filibuster by the Republicans.

There are many examples of Norm wanting to have it both ways.  The filibuster joins a lengthening list of flip flops:

• Anti-War in the 70s, pro-war in the 21st century


• Liberal in the 70s, conservative since '96


• Anti-surge when Bush first proposed it in Jan. 2006, pro-surge by Feb. 2007


• Opposed to medicare negotiating drug prices, now he's for it


• Reduce dependence on foreign oil, changed his mind in June 20005


• Opposed to CAFTA, voted for it in 2005


• Voted for credit industry bankruptcy bill 2005, now he supports credit industry reform