This is a discussion of two theories of legal interpretation and judicial decision making. The discussion centers on the theories of HLA Hart and R. Dworkin. To create a seemingly flowing argument, I will begin with Hart's theory, as it relates to decision-making and judicial judgment, and then move on to Dworkin's and his critique of Hart's theory. We hope this helps explain what we expect of our judges when deciding cases according to the law. Before discussing theories, I must clearly emphasize the distinction between “hard cases” and “easy cases”. I need to clarify this distinction because both theories mention the difference between them. In order to distinguish the two concepts mentioned above, it is best to identify with the traditional view of law. The traditional view of law is that “there are good answers to legal questions, which can be found in the law.” This view is that to find answers to legal questions posed to the courts, one must examine the law, in order to determine the correct answer(s) to the question posed. It is the view that the law has answers to all legal questions, and one must look into the law to find the right answer. This view is supported by both Hart and Dworkin. Now that I have described the conception of law with which both theorists identify, it will be easier to describe the distinction between “easy” and “difficult” cases. Easy cases, or non-controversial cases, are those where the legal rule clearly applies. to the facts of the case, and no interpretation of the legal rule, or of the wording of the rule, is necessary to arrive at a clear answer as to whether this particular rule should be applied to the...... middle of paper ... existing rules do not apply to all of the facts before the judges of the court, then look for legal principles that might apply or do apply, as Dworkin suggests, or use their own discretion based on morals and public considerations, as Hart suggests. It can be seen that Hart's decision is one where he does not use the law to make a final decision, but uses moral and political considerations, unlike Dworkin who uses the law to make decisions. In my opinion, Dworkin's view is the most accurate, because it also eliminates the judge's own subjective thoughts and instead focuses on the law. This creates certainty and allows judges to make correct and legally objective decisions. Therefore, I believe that Dworkin's view best describes how we expect our judges to interpret the law and decide cases before the courts correctly...