ABSTRACT
This chapter offers a more sceptical view of the dialogue metaphor and suggests and provides an alternative understanding of the judicial-legislative relationship under constitutionally entrenched bills of rights. It argues that the Charter's structure is not as robust a remedy for judicial supremacy as the dialogue theorists suggest. The chapter also argues that the empirical evidence in support of the theory is not as strong as it might appear. It suggests that courts and legislatures should be understood as competing political institutions, each with an interest in maximizing its influence over the development of public policy. The chapter summarizes the case for the dialogue metaphor and dialogic constitutionalism. It also offers an alternative to the theory of dialogic constitutionalism. It provides some empirical evidence with respect to the different approaches to abortion and sexual orientation in Morgentaler and Vriend.
