comment: >
  
  Republicans have been trying repeal the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 for years, too. Ask Ken Paxton about that.
context: A copy of the Montana resolution can be found here.
  This harkens back to the disastrous Termination policies of the 1940's-1960's where Congress abolished & privatized reservation trust land and dissolved American Indian tribal governments.  My tribe was terminated in 1954-1974.  Valuable prime real estate was then sold off against our will by a non-Native run corporation.  This news is deeply disturbing to me. >
  
  It’s especially disturbing since the US Constitution explicitly mentions Indian lands as being sovereign, so this resolution’s statement that sovereign tribal lands are anti-Constitution is totally nonsensical from a legal standpoint. Not even mentioning the racism inherent in the statements in the resolution. >
  
  What is terrifying is that it has become clear that SCOTUS is now functioning as a mere appendage of the Republican Party. It has no real connection with the U.S. Constitution at all; the Heller decision and the recent decision about Title 42 on immigration make this clear. 
  When you're an "originalist" (which is more or less like holding a séance trying to connect with your framer du jour) you can pretty much make it up as you go along. That's the genius of it. >
  
  As someone that’s now taken multiple constitutional law courses in law school, I’ve called out originalism multiple times in those classes. Originalism is an absolute cancer in the legal community and too often gets legitimized for the sake of “multiple viewpoints.” And it’s always paired with textualism, which, while a good starting point in legal analysis, cannot be the end point. Textualism is just an appetizer to the rest of the analysis.
  Every single opinion I read that’s from Roberts or Alito is like nails on a chalkboard while kicking puppies. They’re disgraces, even more so than the Trump Trio (Gorsuch has his good moments, but those are far between).
  EDIT: To expand on the end of the first paragraph - when you put textualism and originalism together, you get asinine things like independent state legislature theory, a theory with its entire premise predicating on the LACK of certain language in Article I, Section IV of the Constitution. This issue never came up in 245 years of governance and democracy, yet it comes up now? Fucking originalism. >
  
  Gorsuch does Indian cases well. "The United States signed this, we can read what it says, what's the fucking problem?" >
  
  Right, plus he’s been better on trans issues than other conservative judges and justices. His issue isn’t that he was a 1-to-1 replacement for Scalia, it was that his seat was stolen from Obama and Garland because Mitch McConnell is an antipatriot. >
  
  
  The measure, submitted this week and riddled with racial stereotypes
  
  Of course it did. >
  
  A Republican introduced this? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you. >
  
  Not just any Republican
  
  In 2021, Regier promoted a conspiracy theory that tiny tracking devices were being inserted into COVID-19 vaccine doses. During public debate in the Montana Senate, Regier stated, "I've read articles about putting a little chip in with the vaccine... what if that is federally approved and the employer requires that?" >
  
  “I’ve read articles…” lmao a tale as old as time indeed. Only a stone’s throw from “many people are saying…” >
  
  Source? “Dude, just trust me bro”