Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice or injury to the defendant due to the lateness.

For this decision to survive, SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like a bullshit laches defense, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that acts to violate the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying its obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.

State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, nor should a defense of laches be applicable to a dispute involving a core function of our national government, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice or injury to the defendant due to the lateness.

For this decision to survive, SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like a bullshit laches defense, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that acts to violate the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying its obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.

State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice or injury to the defendant due to the lateness.

For this decision to survive, SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like a bullshit laches defense, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that acts to violate the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.

State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice of injury to the defendant due to the lateness.

For this decision to survive, SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like a bullshit laches defense, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that acts to violate the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.

State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause prejudice of injury to the defendant due to the lateness.

SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like laches, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that violates the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.

State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation of the state constitution, but plaintiff "slept on his rights" and the action would now cause injury to the defendant.

SCOTUS would need to agree that you can simply use equitable remedies, like laches, to ignore state constitutional mandates in a way that violates the federal constitution. That's why I’m not buying the argument that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case because this dispute about the state constitution is intertwined with federal constitutional mandates - SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution here, whether the state can simply ignore state constitution violations using equitable defenses on this narrow question.

State Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. It's potentially akin to saying that there is a violation, but it's too late. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case based simply on the state constitution being intertwined with the federal constitutional issue, because SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case based simply on the state constitution being intertwined with the federal constitutional issue, because SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, because the very notion that the state legislature governs is dictated by the federal constitutional, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case based simply on the state constitution being intertwined with the federal constitutional issue, because SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally. If the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case based simply on the state constitution being intertwined with the federal constitutional issue, because SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally, so if the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on a future appeal for this case based simply on the state constitution being intertwined with the federal constitutional issue, because ultimately, SCOTUS should arguably be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally, so if the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on this appeal simply because the state constitution is intertwined with the federal constitutional issue. Ultimately, SCOTUS should perhaps be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally, so if the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.

Lawyer here. Didn’t read the decision, but if PA Supreme Court is using laches to essentially kill a State constitution dispute, that’s a crazy method for dispatching a meritorious claim that is based on the SECOND highest law of the land in that state. Also, I’m not buying the lack of SCOTUS jurisdiction on this appeal, simply because the state constitution is intertwined with the federal constitutional issue. Ultimately, SCOTUS should perhaps be able to decide whether the State is satisfying it’s obligations under the federal Constitution, which requires that state Legislatures essentially govern the methods of the election locally, so if the state has a local constitution, passed by the state Legislature, those laws must faithfully be executed, with no deviation, or defense of laches applicable, as this then becomes a matter of compliance with the requirements of the federal constitution, with SCOTUS being the ultimate body reviewing said compliance under the doctrine of Judicial Review, regardless of whether there is an equal protection issue.