AbstractI aim to shed theoretical light on the meaning of judicial dialogue by comparing its practice in different jurisdictions. I first examine the practice of dialogic judicial review inWestminster democracies and constitutional departmentalism inAmerican constitutional theory, showing the tendency toward judicial supremacy in both cases. Turning finally to continentalEurope, I argue that the practice of constitutional dialogue there is reconciled with its postwar tradition of judicial supremacy through the deployment of proportionality analysis‐framed judicial admonition. I conclude that constitutional dialogue may take place amid the judicialization of constitutional politics, albeit in the shadow of judicial supremacy.