"the court has a historical obligation to interpret treaties in favor of the tribes"

This is where it all went to crap. That above line is the liberal agenda Jerry and came out of liberal court. Similar to the "living Const" that they use to throw anything they want down our throats. It is a way for the courts and unelected judges to do anything they want. They go around the people and interpret what they want to see.
We need to look back on when those treaties were signed before we start to interpret what we think they should say(or what a liberal judge who believes they were wronged in every way wants them to say). The times were horrible for the indians. The whites were coming and the govern was wiping them out(one of the worst genocides in history). There was no victory for the indians. They might win a few small battles but the war was over. They did not sign these treaties from a position of strength and to say this is what they would have thought or expected is no more than some judge with white guilt attempting to right a wrong. No one knows what they were thinking and to attempt to is impossible.
Should we right that wrong, yes IMO. But do it through the legis and the people not some judge who answers to no one and has their own agenda. If the debate was out there, I think we would do the right thing. The american people know this history.
Bottom line should be what the document states. This was the treaty. Not what some judge wants it to say. Who explained it to them........We dont know and cant know. But for some judge to make it say what she wants or thinks it should is B.S. Amend it through votes not judges. Treaties and The Const(not that you can amend treaties but you get the point).