Human rights groups have worked hard to repair the damaged Human Rights Commission, where Sudan, complicit in the Darfur genocide, is now serving its second consecutive two-year term, along with several others on Freedom House’s list of the world’s “worst of the worst” rights abusers.

And these are the groups we should listen to.  You are right that the mere fact that John Bolton opposes the current draft is not in itself reason to support it.  But what I am much more impressed with is that the human rights organizations I most trust, specifically Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have urged the US government to support the draft legislation as it is.

In any situation like this, we need to rely on the judgment of those who have been on the ground working for reform, and who are best positioned to understand the numerous political issues and challenges involved.  They are the ones we should listen to when we ask whether holding out for better, at this stage, is likely to produce a better result or a worse result.  Human Rights Watch has a clear position on this:

We write further to emphasize our conclusion that the proposal in fact represents the strongest outcome anyone could hope to wrest from the General Assembly, and that opposing it, or seeking to amend it at this juncture, will likely enable the spoiler states to weaken the resolution with numerous amendments, or delay its adoption indefinitely.

The requirement that members of the new, smaller council be elected by a majority of member nations strikes me as a fairly significant advance over the earlier regional apportionment system for the larger commission.  You say "the supermajority requirement would create a hurdle that would be difficult for the most egregious human rights violators to surmount."  But I would think the majority requirement will do much the same thing.  Do you think we live in such a barbarous world that the majority of UN member states will vote for "the most egregious human rights violators."  If this is true, then there is not much hope for reform one way or another.

Frankly, Freedom House is not one of the organizations I most trust.  It has in the past aligned itself too closely with US interests, taken too much US government money, and tends to reflect  the human rights orientation of neoconservatives rather than the global left.  It has certainly done some good work.  But I view it as a compromised group lacking independence, and a sometime tool for US government propaganda.