‘Do You Understand The Ruling?’ Boebert Given Brutal Fact Check After Grilling EPA Administrator

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) grilled EPA Administrator Michael Regan during a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday and found herself receiving a fact-check from one of her colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

“I’m asking about the EPA, and I’m asking about your rogue bureaucrats that have enacted these unconstitutional regulations. Are you going to repeal them? Are you going to continue to implement them, or are you going to stop altogether? Since it’s been overturned?” Boebert said to Regan during her confrontational questioning.

“Do you understand the ruling?” Regan shot back referring to the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, in which the Supreme Court gave courts – not executive branch agencies – the final say over regulations not explicitly made by Congress.

“Do you understand the ruling of the Supreme Court?” Boebert shot back.

“I do, I say your question is, is ill-formed?” Regan answered as Boebert began speaking over him.

“So you’re going to unconstitutionally continue with rule makings?” Boebert said.

“We’re going to adhere to the Supreme Court and continue to,” Regan replied as Boebert insisted, “Which rule makings are you going to roll back?”

“We’re going to adhere to the Supreme Court and continue to do our work in accordance to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court,” Regan tried to explain as Boebert again demanded, “Which ones are you going to repeal?”

“The Supreme Court didn’t tell us to repeal anything,” Regan responded.

“They have been deemed unconstitutional,” Boebert insisted.

“No,” Regan said.

“Absolutely they have. This was a huge victory,” Boebert replied.

Later in the hearing, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) took it upon himself to clarify.

“Mr. Regan. I don’t want to spend too much time on this. But I would just like to clarify a few things for my colleague from Colorado, the Loper-Bright ruling. As you know, said that the courts should not defer to agency rulemaking if a statute is ambiguous and instead the courts get to determine whether or not what the statute means. Is that your understanding as well?” Goldman asked.

“Absolutely,” Regan replied.

“Okay. So that would not require any regulations to be reversed or overturned. Correct?” Goldman asked.

“Correct,” Regan concluded.

Watch the clip above via Acyn.