This is a discussion of two theories of legal interpretation and judicial decision making. The discussion focuses on the theories of HLA Hart and R. Dworkin. To create a seemingly seamless argument, I will begin with Hart's theory, as it relates to judicial decision-making/judicial making, and then move on to Dworkin's and his critique of Hart's theory. Hopefully this helps explain what we expect of our judges when deciding cases according to the law. Before discussing the theories, I must clearly highlight the distinction between the so-called "hard cases" and "easy cases". I need to clarify this distinction since both theories mention the difference between them. To distinguish between the two concepts mentioned above it is better to identify with the traditional vision of law. The traditional view of law is that "there are right answers to legal questions, which can be found within the law." This view is that to find answers to legal questions posed to the courts, it is necessary to examine the law, in order to determine the right answer to the question posed. This is the idea that the law has answers to all legal questions and one must look within the law to find the correct answer. This view is supported by both Hart and Dworkin. Now that I have described the vision of law with which both theorists identify, it will be easier to describe the distinction between "easy" and "difficult" cases. Easy cases, or uncontroversial cases, are those in which the legal rule clearly applies to the facts of the case, and no interpretation of the legal rule, or of the wording in the rule, is necessary to arrive at a clear answer as to whether to apply that particular rule or... of paper ......the existing rules do not apply to the set of facts brought before the court, the judges then look for legal principles that might or do apply, as Dworkin suggests, or they use their own discretion based on morality 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 view, as it also eliminates the subjective thoughts of judges and focuses instead 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 the way in which we expect our judges to interpret the law and rule correctly on matters before the courts..