Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial “Harry Reid’s Holiday Jam” makes a compelling case against passage during the lame-duck session of the START Treaty or the Obamnibus spending bill. After listing several other measures, including the DREAM Act amnesty, the WSJ editorial board observes:

Any one of these issues could warrant at least a week of debate if the Senate were playing its designated constitutional role. But the New Start pact and spending bill in particular deserve at least eight or nine legislative days of debate, with opportunities for Senators to educate the public and offer amendments. As it is, most Americans are preoccupied with their busy holiday lives and have no idea that the world’s greatest deliberative body isn’t deliberating at all.

The only logical conclusion is that the Journal is opposed to passage of the DREAM amnesty during these last few days of the 111th Congress. But the piece goes into detail only about START and the omnibus spending bill, because the editorialists are rightly worried about the substance of those measures. But if it’s really about whether the Senate is “playing its designated constitutional role,” then the paper must oppose DREAM as well, at least until the new Congress convenes.

So, inquiring minds want to know: Is the Wall Street Journal against passage during the lame duck of any complex legislation requiring extended debate, including an illegal-alien amnesty they otherwise support, or is that a rhetorical tactic used against legislation whose substance they disapprove of?