'Occupy The Courts' comes at an opportune moment

Protesters aiming to occupy the US supreme court will have difficulties even approaching it
Police officer patrols outside US Supreme Court after Justice OConnor announced her resignation
Protesters in the past, including activist Cornel West have been removed by supreme court police REUTERS/Shaun Heasley Shaun Heasley/REUTERS

At some point on Friday, protesters across the United States plan to "Occupy the Courts" at rallies across the country. An offshoot of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, Occupy the Courts is attempting to draw national attention to the second anniversary of the US supreme court's now-infamous Citizens United v FEC decision, which removed spending limits by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns.

The decision has been widely criticised for its assertion that corporations are entitled to the same free speech rights as individuals, and for the volcano of bilious new attack ads that have already sicked-up the Republican primary season in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Already Occupy the courts has filed a suit in New York, where they were declined a permit to hold the rally at the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan. They lost on Thursday and will have to hold the protest elsewhere. Occupy the Courts describes the event as

"a one day occupation of space and mass exercise of frst amendment rights near over 120 federal courthouses in at least 46 states across the country, including the US supreme court."

Protests will launch a national petition drive to amend the federal constitution to roll back Citizens United. Occupy Wall Street activists are expected to join the protest.

At one level, Occupy the Courts could not be a more brilliant campaign at more opportune moment. After all, Occupy Wall Street has been faulted for being – as they might say in Texas – all hat no cattle; a movement with huge popular support but no coherent objective. By taking a position on Citizens United and the massive influx of corporate dollars pouring into election campaigns, protesters not only align themselves with the 99% of Americans who can't yet afford to buy and sell entire elections, but also seize upon the most abhorrent metaphor deployed by the 5-4 majority in the Citizens United decision: that corporations are the same as living, breathing humans when it comes to constitutional protections.

It was a throwaway element of the case; one the five conservative justices have doubtless come to regret (less than a year later they had to hear a case involving AT&T's claimed that it was capable of embarrassment. They sent AT&T packing). But in the black night of a recession, it is the supreme court that ultimately decided that for some constitutional purposes, corporations are people and people who have been fired, abused, forced into arbitration, and discriminated against by big corporations had enough.

It's worth noting here that the same supreme court made it easier for corporate America to abuse ordinary citizens by wall of firings, discrimination and forced arbitration. Citizens United and the myth of corporate personhood are the right symbol. But the problem runs far, far deeper.

This, then, is what happens when the Supreme Court and the 99% collide.

Of course the problem for those who seek to occupy the courts today is that it is not only nearly impossible to occupy the supreme court, it's quite difficult even to approach it. The rules governing protest at the high court and both strict and strictly enforced. Just ask scholar/activist Cornel West, arrested on the steps of the court last October on the day of the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. Standing on the steps to the building with a sign that said "Poverty is the worst form of violence," West was quickly taken away by the supreme court's police.

As the Christian Science Monitor observed last November, it strikes most Americans as deeply ironic that free speech is banned on the plaza in front of the court that has the last word in determining the contours of free speech in America.

Title 40, subtitle II, part C, chapter 61, subchapter IV, section 6135 of the US Code nevertheless provides that:

"It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the supreme court building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement."

Public protest is permitted on the strip of sidewalk directly in front of the plaza, but it would only accommodate a smallish rally at best. The heart of the supreme court's decision in Citizens United is that all voices should be heard equally, and that suppression of any speech is dangerous in a democracy. The fact that citizen speech about that case near the nation's courthouses isn't allowed hasn't been lost on the protesters, who mostly already knew the court's famous pledge of "Equal Justice Under Law" is increasingly more corporate slogan than constitutional promise.