She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, gave Boebert a befuddled look when she asked him if the federal agency would continue enabling “rouge bureaucrats to enact unconstitutional regulations” even after the court’s decision that ended the 40-year run of the so-called Chevron standard.
Boebert fired back the same question and dug her heels in the sand, asking him which regulations the EPA would “repeal” to adhere to the court’s ruling.
However, the ruling does not prevent agencies from continuing to issue regulations – something Boebert’s question seemed to imply.
Regan testified to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s recent decision, saying he was “disappointed” and concerned about its impact.
He told committee members that the decision could hurt the EPA’s ability to interpret language and implement regulations about climate-related investments – something the Joe Biden administration has prioritized over the last four years.
Shortly after Boebert and Regan’s exchange, New York Representative Daniel Goldman pointedly spelled out the Supreme Court’s hearing for “clarify” purposes.
The original article contains 452 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That’s not the kind of head she good with
Who wrote that article? The amount of typos and misspellings is insane.
I’m not a fan or sympathiser for Boebert but nothing in the way the article is written seems to imply impartial journalism. We are so fucked.
Independent is a terrible outlet. I don’t know why it gets linked so much on social media. Maybe because they have the most click bait titles or something.
The world would probably look a lot different if we’d stop riling each other up all the time. Media outlets like that feed on the hate and only promote it.
I would argue that you couldn’t really get much less clickbait-y than the headline here. The only detail it leaves out is what the actual fact that was checked is, and that’s because that explanation wouldn’t fit in a title.
The headline implies a lot of people were laughing at her, at least that was my first impression. When it was really just one guy who gave a brief chuckle at her question. Considering the “laughing” is such a tiny part of what happened, I feel the opposite and it would be tough to make it more clickbait-y.
When are people going to understand it’s not about being right. She is teeing up soundbites for right wing media to clip and talk about “how brave she is for tackling the corrupt EPA.”
So lmk when you plan to stand against Biden, he literally has crossed all his morals so clearly has none left, and/or how do you plan to defend him?
The journalist does, probably. But this isn’t an opinion piece where they get to characterize what they assume her corrupt intentions to be. They’re reporting on the exchange, which all happened as described. They threw in his response, where he pointed out that she’s doing it for sound bites while praising and working with the EPA behind closed doors. What more can the journalist say? This isn’t a twitter post…but it is the independent. Which isn’t exactly much better. But it still needs to have the appearance of journalistic standards
It does matter to highlight her idiocy to the parts of the country not in the cult.
