Truth or Consequences for Gill and Senatorial Courtesy

Gov. Corzine's nomination of Attorney General Stuart Rabner for Chief Justice of the NJ Supreme Court has sparked a very public democratic political squabble that only now looks to be nearing its end. The hold-up of Rabner's nomination by Sen. Nia Hill through her employment of senatorial courtesy looks from the outside to be a small check on the gov's power from the Senate majority, but if Nia Gill continues to go the "no comment" route about her reasons for putting the brakes on the appointment process, she should reap a political backlash.

Senatorial courtesy remains a viable legislative and political tool for wielding influence in what would normally be rubber stamp gubernatorial appointments, in order to force greater discussion and public debate about the unelected people who run the majority of our government programs; however, it is not without a two-edged caveat - in this case caveat tacenda, beware things that are passed over in silence. Nia Gill raised an objection to Rabner's appointment, but did so without public explanation. Essentially, she spoke out silently and disrupted the appointment process without fostering greater debate on the issue of the appointment.

As a public official, her political choices should (and have) come under scrutiny, especially those based on a subjective provision like senatorial courtesy. She needs to explain herself, with a good reason for her objection despite her backing from Richard Cody and the senate majority, or else in her silence reap some political consequences.

PoliticsNJ.com captured U.S. Attorney Chris Christie's reaction, in a story from June 14: "It's absolutely appalling and I am angry and you should be angry too," said Christie, referring in part to Gill’s expressed desire to take her time assessing Rabner’s qualifications, a practice in this case known as senatorial courtesy.
"You should have had it up to your ears with the petty politics of Trenton, with the failure of the people that we elect to represent us," Christie said "... It's petty and small and all that's wrong with politics in this state."

Now there isn't anyone that I can see who wouldn't give a week's worth of senatorial courtesy to avoid hearing Christie's opinion on anything as of late, and while his point on the pettiness of the political aspects of Gill's move are noted, if anything he should be asking for a further explanation of why Gill needs more time to deliberate Rabner's appointment, instead of taking the political low-ground while masquerading as a high-minded anti-pol. We know you're angling for an office, Christie, can't you save some of the rhetoric?

So despite the Christie media oppportunity, we need to take a look at why Gill is blocking the appointment, and she needs to be prodded into providing a reason for her stall tactics lest she be judged to have used this opportunity as another grudge match trump card.

If she was stalling for time, and allegations begin surfacing against Rabner's effectiveness for the post, then perhaps her outspoken silence will be vindicated. At the moment, it looks as though political power moves spurred Gill towards using senatorial courtesy to block the appointment, but without a leg to stand on.