When New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner announced last week that all civil matters would be suspended in six New Jersey counties, the response from the Legislature was silence and from the Administration indifference.

There was no sense of urgency, no expressions of concern that thousands of individuals would be denied their basic, fundamental Constitutional right — access to a fair, impartial judicial system seeking to resolve grievances and settle differences.

There are, Rabner said, simply an insufficient number of judges available to conduct trials and hear motions in Hunterdon, Somerset, Warren, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem counties and warned that unless judicial nominations are cleared in the Senate, similar suspensions could be ordered in other counties.

In the court system statewide, 69 vacancies exist — one in every six — and, according to Rabner, pose a serious challenge to a smooth functioning judiciary capable of meeting its constitutional responsibility to deliver timely decisions and rulings.

The six county suspension will delay indefinitely personal injury trials, matrimonial and divorce cases, labor discrimination, and medical malpractice lawsuits.

Criminal cases will not be affected, nor will child support, custody and visitation matters.

The closings will, however, impact thousands of individuals personally and economically, imposing an added financial burden on litigants as well as heightening the emotional strain on those who’ve already endured delays in resolving often sensitive issues.

The suspension will impact the judiciary heavily as well, creating an even greater backlog of cases awaiting trial and delaying resolution even further.

Rabner, with strong and vociferous support from the New Jersey Bar Association, has sounded a similar alarm before, urging the Administration and the Legislature to act with dispatch to fill vacancies on the bench — a plea which fell on deaf ears then and seemingly now and leading to the dramatic step of shutting down an integral part of the system.

With an average of 50 vacancies in each of the last three years, the system has operated under a strain on its resources but has reached a breaking point resulting in courtroom closures.

The legislative and administration dismissive responses to the Chief Justice’s plea suggests neither considers a fully staffed judiciary a priority, despite the damage inflicted on their constituents by their prolonged lackadaisical approach to erase the vacancies on the bench.

Of the several thousand positions filled by a governor through the nomination and confirmation process, judgeships are the most predictable.  Aside from the handful of unanticipated resignations, mandatory retirement at age 70 is known well in advance and the interview, background investigation and replacement procedure can begin with ample time before acting.

A failure to begin the process in anticipation of a retirement indicates a seriously flawed system within the Administration or a lack of understanding of the importance of placing a judicial nomination above that of one involving an unpaid and largely honorary seat on a commission.

To be sure, political considerations often loom over the process and it’s always been so.  Senatorial courtesy — the unwritten rule to allow a Senator from the nominee’s home county to block consideration without disclosing a reason — is at play with judicial nominations in particular.

Dealing with a recalcitrant Senator is part and parcel of a governor’s office responsibility and, while it is relatively simple to avoid it by blaming a stubborn or politically motivated Senator, the onus is on the governor’s office to reach an accommodation and end an impasse.

Despite periodic wailing over the unfairness and anti-Constitutional flavor of the courtesy rule, only the most naïve believe it will ever be abolished.  Successive governors have dealt with it in different ways, but deal with it they must.

One of the more intriguing proposals involved a Constitutional amendment to mandate a Senate vote within a specified period of time following a judicial nomination — 60 or 90 days, for instance — while providing that a failure to act in that time frame would trigger automatic confirmation of the nominee.

Despite the apparent reasonableness of the idea, it never stood a chance against the courtesy forces.

Rabner was restrained but firm in his assessment: “We recognize that when the doors of the courthouse are closed — even partially — people entitled to their day in court suffer real harm.”

It may turn out, however, that the Chief Justice’s dire prediction of further closures may move both the Administration and the Legislature toward a more urgent posture.

If doors are locked in, say, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex or Union counties, etc. — the centers of population — the impact of inaction and the political pressure it would generate would become intolerable.

Would the silence of the Legislature and the in difference of the Administration to Rabner’s recent actions prevail in the face of such a backlash?

Finding out would come at a cost too steep to contemplate or risk.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University.