Thread by @AkivaMCohen

@BambuDB He's wrong. Flatly and stupidly. For multiple reasons

@BambuDB 1) SCOTUS cannot reverse a state supreme court on an issue of state law. The argument is that under PA state law, laches can't bar consideration of a constitutional challenge under the PA constitution. That's a pure question of state law. SCOTUS has no say

@BambuDB 2) Separately from that, he's wrong about what the precedent was. Even under Stilip, laches wouldn't bar a challenge to applying the law *going forward* but it absolutely would bar a challenge to election results from elections *already held* under the challenged law.

@BambuDB 3) Even if none of that were true, it is literally impossible for a State Supreme Court to "wrongly not follow its own precedents". State Supreme Courts - like the US Supreme Court - have the ability to overrule their prior decisions and say "the law is different moving foward"

@BambuDB So if the PA Supreme Court's decision in Kelly was inconsistent with the rule of Stilip, then all that would mean is "the PA Supreme Court reversed Stilip and now holds that laches *can* bar state constitutional challenges"

@BambuDB The Supreme Court is not going to care about any of that, especially because it's well-settled that laches can bar *federal* Constitutional claims (so there's no federal constitutional bar to the PA Supreme Court saying "laches bars this case"