the individual Justices on both courts, for assisting my research, answering my questions, and letting me see the daily life of constitutional justice. The staff at the Institute for Law and Public Policy, particulary director Olga Siderovich, hosted my visit in Moscow in 1993 and provided both expert guidance and terrific company. I would also like to thank Serguei Oushakine, who introduced me to Russia and generally made my life in that part of the world both possible and enjoyable. And, finally, the editors of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review deserve much praise for their willingness to take this on, their good humor, and their extraordinary patience. 1 HERMAN SCHWARTZ, THE STRUGGLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE 1 (2000). The only potential exception to this generalization is Estonia, which created a constitutional panel within its Supreme Court instead. Id. at 249 n.2, 253 n.7. 2 The phrase is associated with debate between Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen in 1931, which took place as the Weimar Republic teetered toward collapse. Schmitt's pra note 2, at 192. For a discussion of Kelsen's contribution, see MARTIN SHAPIRO & ALEC STONE SWEET, ON LAW, POLITICS, AND JUDICIALIZATION 147-48 (2002). 9 This is especially true of cases that are referred to the constitutional court by an ordinary court judge who has a constitutional question that cannot be resolved by her court. The judge in such a case is supposed to send the constitutional question to the constitutional court for resolution, staying the proceedings in her court until she gets an answer. When the constitutional court provides the answer to the constitutional question, the case in the ordinary court can be resumed.