The Constitutional argument that all state laws are subject to review by SCOTUS is the Supremacy Clause, which holds that the United States Constitution (and therefore its enforcers and interpreters) and the Federal law that descends from it, automatically overrule any law passed by a state, even that state's own Constitution.
The legal principle in play is one of sovereignty, you cannot say that slavery is illegal in The United States of America, and then allow Kansas to tack on an, "Except here" and still have the former statement mean anything substantive.
This does not mean that all state laws are de facto subject to judicial review. The Court has discretion to choose what it will and will not take up on its docket - and the final authority as to what the Court may take up into its docket is The Constitution itself, the interpreter there of is... wait for it.... the Court itself.
Basically they have unlimited scope of judicial review - the check on this power is that they cannot proactively take things up. They have to wait for someone to complain loudly enough to get to their doorstep first.
So is there a historical, Constitutional argument to defend trying to defeat the Supremacy Clause? Almost certainly none that has any coherency or merit. Lawyers are creative people, however, and I'll certainly salute someone who finds one.