Warner, Kaine, Beyer on Supreme Court travel ban decision

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, along ideological lines, to uphold President Trump’s ban on travel for people from six predominantly Muslim countries.

The ruling overturns lower-court decisions that had held the ban unconstitutional because it had been crafted specifically to impose a “Muslim ban.”

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

The majority held that Trump “has lawfully exercised the broad discretion” granted to the president to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States.

In response to the ruling, U.S. Sen. Mark Warner said “(t)he only thing the Supreme Court decided today was that the President’s actions were constitutional. While I disagree with the court, today’s decision does not make the President’s actions or statements related to the travel ban moral or just.”

“We need to fight religious discrimination at every turn. Congress should take action to reverse the Trump travel ban,” Warner said.

Sen. Tim Kaine expressed his disappointment with the ruling, saying Trump’s intentions with the ban are clear: “to stoke fear, perpetuate stereotypes, and make our immigration policy more about politics than national security.”

“Discriminating against individuals based on their religion or country of origin without evidence that the person poses a national security threat doesn’t make us any safer, and it undermines our core values. Congress should pass legislation to revoke this ban,” Kaine said.

Congressman Don Beyer, D-Va., said the decision will “go down as one of the worst mistakes in the Court’s history.”

‘Chief Justice Roberts and the Justices who concurred in his opinion chose to intentionally overlook the obvious animus of bigotry which was the sole motivation for every iteration of the Muslim ban,” Beyer said. “It is clear in hindsight that prejudice was the inspiration behind every Muslim ban. To this day none of the bans has produced any substantive process changes to how the country admits travelers and immigrants beyond simply preventing people from certain races or religions the ability to come to the United States. Justice Sotomayor was exactly right to point out that ‘a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was driven primarily by anti-Muslim animus.”