Taking Dialogue Theory Much too Seriously (or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such a Good Thing after all)

Abstract

This article challenges the thesis of Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, and Wade K. Wright (put forth earlier in this issue) that the frequency of legislative responses to Charter decisions striking down laws, which they refer to as "Charter dialogue," provides evidence that Canada has a weaker form of. judicial review than is thought to exist in the United States. This article also critiques their claim that judicial review is justified by the idea that individuals have rights that cannot be taken away by an appeal to the general welfare'. The author maintains that this claim not only contradicts their previous arguments, but also undermines their position that Charter dialogue, insofar as it allows legislatures to reassert majoritarian objectives following adverse court decisions, is a good thing.