Despite being an obstacle to legislative majoritarianism, judicial review itself often turns to simple majorities while deciding a case. Recently, authors such as Krishnamurthi, Waldron, and Shugerman have questioned the usage of simple majorities in judicial review and supported establishing supermajorities. In doing so, they have been mostly inspired by a general analysis of voting rules and the experience of some states in the United States (such as Ohio, North Dakota, and Nebraska). Most authors advocating for supermajorities tend to ignore the effective usage of the mechanism in comparative law. Countries such as Mexico, Poland, Georgia, Czech Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, or Corea have experience with supermajorities, and understanding its functioning is crucial to the supermajorities debate. I offer an account of the comparative debate as an input to a defense of the supermajorities conceived as deferential mechanisms.