President Donald Trump expressed frustration with Ukraine after strikes on infrastructure disrupted oil shipments to Hungary, a country he considers a close ally. The Pipeline Attack
Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, led by Commander
Robert Brovdi (known by his call sign Madyar), confirmed that Ukrainian drones hit the Unecha oil pumping station in Russia, a key point on the Druzhba pipeline. The incident could halt supplies to Hungary for several days.
The pipeline had already been targeted earlier this month, causing significant damage and fires before repairs were completed on August 19. Friday’s strike marked the second major disruption in recent weeks.
Orbán and Trump Exchange Words
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán sharply criticized Ukraine’s actions, noting that Hungary has provided energy assistance to Kyiv.
“Hungary supports Ukraine with electricity and fuel, and in return they strike the pipelines that supply us. This is not a friendly move,” Orbán said, adding his support for Trump’s broader push for negotiations.
Trump responded publicly, telling Orbán: “I do not like hearing this. I am very angry about it. You are my great friend.”
Jasmine Crockett Aims to Fill the Shoes of Justice Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown-Jackson
Jasmine Crockett, a Democratic Congresswoman from Texas, recently made a bold statement that she could see herself filling the shoes of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown-Jackson.While Crockett’s ambition is commendable, the idea of a relatively unknown freshman legislator stepping into the shoes of two of the highest-profile justices in modern American history is, at best, an ambitious notion and, at worst, a display of overconfidence without a solid track record to support it.Crockett’s statement comes as part of her ongoing efforts to align herself with the top echelons of the Democratic Party. Her comments echo a broader trend within certain political circles where individuals with limited experience seem eager to project themselves as the next big thing, regardless of whether they have the qualifications to back
it up.
However, her ambition begs the question: Does a member of Congress with less than a decade in politics truly have the gravitas and experience to one day sit on the nation’s highest court?While Crockett’s aspirations may seem noble to her supporters, they come across as somewhat disconnected from the reality of the extensive qualifications needed for a seat on the Supreme Court.Justices like Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson spent decades honing their legal skills before even being considered for the highest judicial office in the land. Sotomayor, for instance, was a prosecutor, a trial judge, and an appellate judge before being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2009.Brown-Jackson, similarly, spent years as a federal judge, including a tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, before her appointment by President Joe Biden. In contrast, Crockett, while undoubtedly a rising star within the Democratic Party, has yet to build the type of judicial background that typically forms the foundation for a Supreme Court nomination.
Serving a few terms in Congress, while undoubtedly important in the realm of policymaking, is not the same as spending decades shaping judicial rulings, interpreting the law, and contributing to the fabric of legal scholarship.Indeed, serving on the Supreme Court requires a nuanced understanding of constitutional law and years of experience in both legal and judicial matters—two areas in which Crockett’s background appears to be lacking.Moreover, Crockett’s statement about filling the shoes of Sotomayor or Brown-Jackson seems to ignore the rigorous and often highly political vetting process that comes with a Supreme Court nomination.While it is certainly true that political figures, especially those with the backing of influential politicians or parties, can secure such nominations, Crockett’s comments suggest an almost reckless self-confidence, as if the position is something that can be attained simply by willpower or ambition alone.Let’s not forget that both Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson were carefully vetted and widely respected legal minds before their nominations. Sotomayor’s extensive experience in the federal courts, including her time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, made her an obvious choice for former President Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment.Brown-Jackson, with her stellar academic record and her record as a federal judge, was similarly seen as a natural candidate for the position she currently holds.In contrast, Crockett’s political resume, while impressive in its own right, is far more focused on advocacy, activism, and representation than on the nuanced, legalistic world of judicial decision-making.Crockett may have made a name for herself in Congress with her outspoken advocacy for social justice, criminal reform, and other progressive causes, but those qualities do not necessarily translate into the impartiality and careful analysis required of a Supreme Court Justice.
Moreover, Crockett’s comments seem to blur the line between political ambition and judicial temperament. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a non-partisan body, a place where justices base their decisions on the law and the Constitution, rather than political ideologies or personal beliefs.Yet, by publicly aligning herself with the legacy of two progressive icons, Crockett risks further politicizing the Court and eroding the public’s faith in its neutrality. If the public sees the Court as nothing more than a political battleground for ideological warriors, it will only further damage the institution’s reputation and integrity.Additionally, Crockett’s focus on following in the footsteps of current justices is somewhat misguided. While it is natural for rising political stars to have role models, the Supreme Court is not a place for ideological clones of previous justices.Justices are expected to bring their own independent legal analysis to the bench, making decisions based on the law, not personal ambition or political loyalty.While it’s clear that Crockett admires the work of Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, it’s crucial for her to understand that a Supreme Court Justice must be an independent thinker, not someone who simply follows in the ideological footsteps of their predecessors.Her comments about aiming to fill their shoes also seem to reflect an oversimplified view of what it means to serve on the Supreme Court. The job is not about advancing a personal agenda or advocating for partisan policies; it is about interpreting the law with fairness and integrity.Crockett, while undoubtedly a talented political figure, is still very much in the early stages of her political career, and it remains to be seen whether she possesses the necessary qualities to rise to the immense responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice.At this stage, it might be more prudent for Crockett to focus on building a strong record in Congress and gaining deeper insight into the workings of the judiciary.
A career in the law or as a judge would provide her with the kind of experience needed for a potential nomination in the future. But declaring that she can see herself on the Supreme Court now is premature and, frankly, a bit of a stretch.While ambition is a critical quality for any successful politician, Crockett’s comments about replacing Sotomayor or Brown-Jackson on the Supreme Court might come off as a bit too much, too soon.It is a reminder that in American politics, while it is possible to rise quickly through the ranks, certain positions—especially those as monumental as a seat on the Supreme Court—require years of experience, expertise, and a deep understanding of the law.It’s great to aim high, but one must also recognize the road that must be traveled to get there.In conclusion, while Jasmine Crockett’s ambitions are admirable, her statement about one day filling the shoes of Justice Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown-Jackson on the Supreme Court appears to be more about self-promotion than a realistic understanding of what is required to serve on the nation’s highest court.Crockett may very well have a future in the legal or judicial world, but she would be wise to focus on building the necessary experience and legal expertise before entertaining the idea of a Supreme Court nomination.For now, her career in Congress should be the priority, and her focus should be on serving the people who elected her rather than daydreaming about future judicial appointments.