What does that say about Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito?
The dissenting judges in this case understood the treaty in question to be a temporary one, not one that would be binding in perpetuity. Their rationale was that the treaty established conditions for “unoccupied lands” ... and since it was signed at a time when the territories were being settled, there was clearly an understanding that what met the definition of “unoccupied lands” in 1850 would not necessarily remain unoccupied in 1900, 1950, etc.
what does it say about them? That they are non-hunting kids that went to elite east cost schools, are out of touch with life in the west, and couldn’t care less about upholding an Indian treaty.