What the Cartoon

Texas AG says clerks can cite religious objections on gay marriage, most states complying with ruling

The top law enforcement official in Texas said county clerks can cite religious objections in denying marriage licenses for gay couples -- though the Lone Star State and others have for the most part started complying with Friday’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
Despite initial resistance in several of the 14 states that did not previously allow same-sex marriage, top officials in those states by Monday said they planned to comply. Among them were officials in Mississippi and Louisiana.
Even staunch conservative critics acknowledge states will have to, in the near-term, follow the court ruling.
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, released a statement suggesting the next battle over gay marriage may be over how to balance that ruling with First Amendment religious freedoms. He predicted clerks and others could be at the center of it.
“[T]he United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist,” he said in a statement released late Sunday. “… Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty.”
He warned that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion requested by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton said "numerous lawyers" stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one. And Paxton said he would do “everything I can from this office to be a public voice” for them.
In its 5-4 opinion Friday, the Supreme Court did nothing to eliminate rights of religious liberty, Paxton's opinion states.
Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, agreed that the religious rights issue is the next thorny issue to resolve.
“The biggest question that was left in limbo is the next big challenge: how to balance these new-found constitutional rights and a long-standing and explicit right to exercise religion. That’ll be the next battleground,” she said.
Accepting the Supreme Court’s basic decision may be less of an issue. While several states initially slow-walked their compliance with the ruling, that resistance appears to be melting. Severino said she doesn’t expect further lawsuits challenging the ruling itself.
“If a state did attempt to challenge this decision, they would simply be struck down by the federal court that has jurisdiction over the state. It would be a beyond uphill battle. Federal courts are directly controlled by this decision,” she said.
The Supreme Court technically gave the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. And for the ruling to technically take effect in most states, the circuit courts will have to adopt the ruling, in turn sending an order to state agencies, which will be told to hand out the marriage licenses.
Immediately after Friday’s ruling, some states said they would wait, even as clerks in counties scattered across the country began issuing licenses.
In Mississippi, Attorney General Jim Hood initially said they would wait until the applicable circuit court lifted a stay on a prior order before issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
The Clarion-Ledger reported Monday that the same office has since sent a letter allowing circuit clerks to issue the licenses.
The letter reportedly said Friday’s ruling is now “the law of the land.”
Likewise, a parish in Louisiana reportedly has started to issue licenses after officials there resisting doing so on Friday.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican presidential candidate, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that they, too, were waiting for the circuit court to reverse a prior ruling.
But, he acknowledged, “We have got no choice to comply, even though I think … this decision was the wrong one.”

Donald Trump calls NBC 'weak and foolish' after they sever ties with GOP hopeful

Donald Trump labeled NBC as "weak and foolish" after they ended their business relationship with the GOP hopeful over his comments about immigrants from Mexico, and said he'd see the Peacock network in court.
“If NBC is so weak and so foolish to not understand the serious illegal immigration problem in the United States, coupled with the horrendous and unfair trade deals we are making with Mexico, then their contract violating closure of Miss Universe/Miss USA will be determined in court," Trump said in a statement to FOXNews.com. "Furthermore, they will stand behind lying Brian Williams, but won’t stand behind people that tell it like it is, as unpleasant as that may be.”
NBC cut ties with Trump after he, in his announcement to run for president, described immigrants from Mexico as "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."
“At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values," the network said in a statement. "Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump."
The network added that it was done with Trump's pageants as well.
"To that end, the annual Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, which are part of a joint venture between NBC and Trump, will no longer air on NBC."

More on this...

• Trump fires back at Univision, Neil Young

Click here to subscribe to FOX411’s YouTube channel
NBC was co-owner with Trump of the pageants and is in business with him as host and producer of the popular show "The Celebrity Apprentice."
The network stated that their reality show with him was kaput, too.
"In addition, as Mr. Trump has already indicated, he will not be participating in 'The Celebrity Apprentice' on NBC. 'Celebrity Apprentice' is licensed from Mark Burnett's United Artists Media Group and that relationship will continue."
Before issuing his statement on the matter, Trump first addressed NBC's decision while speaking at an event at City Club of Chicago on Monday afternoon.
"Whatever they want to do is O.K. with me," he said. "I’ve had a lot of great relationships with NBC, I think as far as ending the relationship, I have to do that, because my view on immigration is much different than the people at NBC."
A petition posted on Change.org asking NBC to fire Trump had collected more than 215,000 signatures since being posted on June 26.
Last week, Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network, said it wouldn't air the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants, and will cut all future business ties with him.
At the time, NBC responded only by saying the company doesn't "agree with his positions on a number of issues including his recent comments on immigration." A sister network of NBC is Telemundo, another major Spanish-language TV outlet, which aired the Miss Universe pageants before Univision won the contract.

Supreme Court blocks Texas abortion-clinic rules

The Supreme Court acted Monday to keep Texas' 19 abortion clinics open, amid a legal fight that threatens to close more than half of them.
The justices voted 5-4 to grant an emergency appeal from the clinics after a federal appeals court upheld new clinic regulations and refused to keep them on hold while the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court order will remain in effect at least until the court decides whether to hear the clinics' appeal of the lower court ruling, not before the fall.
The court's decision to block the regulations is a strong indication that the justices will hear the full appeal, which could be the biggest abortion case at the Supreme Court in nearly 25 years.
If the court steps in, the hearing and the eventual ruling would come amid the 2016 presidential campaign.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the state to move ahead with regulations requiring abortion facilities to be constructed like surgical centers. Doctors at all clinics also would be required to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
The clinics said enforcing the new regulations would lead to a second major wave of clinic closures statewide since the law was enacted in 2013. Texas had 41 abortion clinics in 2012; 19 remain.
The admitting privileges requirement already is in effect in much of the state. Stephanie Toti, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights who is representing the clinics, said some clinics that closed because doctors lacked admitting privileges might be able to reopen.
While the clinic operators said they were relieved by the court's action, supporters of the state law criticized the order. "Women and babies are being denied protections with the Supreme Court blocking pro-life legislation," said Lila Rose, president of Live Action, an anti-abortion advocacy group.
The regulations would have left the state with no clinic west of San Antonio. Only one would have been able to operate on a limited basis in the Rio Grande Valley.
The Supreme Court also is weighing an appeal from Mississippi, which is seeking to enforce an admitting privileges requirement that would close the last abortion clinic in the state. A different three-judge panel of the same federal appeals court, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has blocked the Mississippi law.
In November 2013, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that four justices probably would want to review the constitutionality of the Texas regulations. Last year, the high court prevented enforcement while the case was on appeal to the 5th Circuit.
Backers of the regulations say they are common-sense measures intended to protect women. Abortion rights groups say the regulations have only one aim: to make it harder, if not impossible, for women to get abortions in Texas.
The case could be attractive to the justices because it might allow them to give more definition to the key phrase from their last big abortion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992. States generally can regulate abortion unless doing so places "an undue burden" on a woman's right to get an abortion.
Monday was the 23rd anniversary of the Casey ruling.

Obama proposal would make 5 million more eligible for OT

WASHINGTON –  Salaried workers who earn nearly $1,000 per week would become eligible for overtime pay under a proposal President Barack Obama unveiled Monday, lamenting that too many Americans are working too many hours for less pay than they deserve.
The long-awaited overtime rule from the Labor Department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, from the current $455 a week to $970 a week by next year. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week, up from the current $23,660 a year.
"We've got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded," Obama wrote in an op-ed in The Huffington Post. "That's how America should do business. In this country, a hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay."
To keep up with future inflation and wage growth, the proposal will peg the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of income, individuals familiar with the plan said. They requested anonymity to discuss the proposal ahead of the official announcement.
The president was to promote the proposal during a visit Thursday to La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Obama's proposal aims to narrow a loophole that the president has long said some employers exploit to avoid paying overtime.
Employees who make above the salary threshold can be denied overtime if they are deemed managers. Some work grueling schedules at fast food chains and retail stores, but with no overtime eligibility, their pay may be lower per hour than many workers they supervise.
The existing salary cap, established in 2004 under President George W. Bush, has been eroded by inflation and now relegates a family of four making just above the cap into poverty territory. Obama has long charged that the level is too low and undercuts the intent of the overtime law.
The proposed changes will be open for public comment and could take months to finalize. They can be enacted through regulation, without approval by the Republican-led Congress.
Although the Labor Department's estimates suggest the proposal would raise wages for 5 million people, other estimates are far higher. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, recently estimated that a threshold of $984 a week would cover 15 million people.
"This is by definition middle-class people. This reverses decades of neglect," said EPI President Larry Mishel, adding that the proposal would also likely create jobs for hourly workers.
Under the current threshold, only about 8 percent of salaried workers are eligible for 1½ times their regular pay when they work overtime. The EPI estimates that doubling the salary level would make up to 40 percent of salaried workers eligible.
Yet many Republicans have opposed Obama's plans to increase the threshold, arguing that doing so would discourage companies from creating jobs and dampen economic growth. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who chairs the Senate's labor panel, has derided the idea as designed "to make it as unappealing as possible" for companies to create jobs.
Obama, in his op-ed, argued the exemption was intended for highly paid, white-collar employees but now punished lower-income workers because the government has failed to update the regulations. He said the proposal would be good not only for workers but also for employers that pay their employees what they deserve, because they will no longer be undercut by competitors who pay their workers less.
"Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do exceptionally well? Or will we push for an economy where every American who works hard can contribute to and benefit from our success?" Obama said, setting up a populist argument that Democrats are likely to embrace in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
The beneficiaries would be people like Brittany Swa, 30, a former manager of a Chipotle restaurant in Denver. As a management trainee, she started as an entry-level crew member in March 2010. After several months she began working as an "apprentice," which required a minimum 50-hour work week.
Yet her duties changed little. She had a key to the shop and could make bank deposits, but otherwise spent nearly all her time preparing orders and working the cash register. She frequently worked 60 hours a week but didn't get overtime because she earned $36,000.
The grueling hours continued after she was promoted to store manager in October 2010. She left two years later and has joined a class-action lawsuit against Chipotle, charging that apprentices shouldn't be classified as managers exempt from overtime. A spokesman for Chipotle declined to comment on the case.