In addition, the legislative model holds that a litigant is asking only that the court base its decision on what would be best for society as a whole. Since the rules are too unclear to give the litigant any rights, the litigant is simply showing the court the need for judicial legislation on the issue (Murphy and Coleman, 45). Therefore, the litigant can only hope the new legislation will benefit them. Because the legislative model claims that in a hard case the rules have often run out, a litigant cannot say “I had a right to win” since no law exists to give the litigant any real rights in the case. This character of the legislative model further increases the judge’s strength of discretion in hard cases since the litigant cannot produce a legal argument advocating a specific decision.

Now that we have discussed the characteristics of Hart’s legislative model, I want to examine Dworkin’s principle model, which I believe is a much better explanation of judicial decision making. In my opinion, the legislative model’s view that in the absence of rules there is no law is wholly incorrect. It seems, the legislative model doesn’t adequately explain how judges make decisions in tough cases. All we are told is that they legislate new law. However, Hart doesn’t give any specific guidelines or methods as to how this legislating takes place. In contrast, Dworkin claims that morality in the form of principles comes into play in judicial decisions when there are gaps in the rules. Under the principle model, judges appeal to pre-existing legal principles when deciding a hard case. An example of principles’ use in a hard case is Riggs v. Palmer, where the court had to decide whether an heir could inherit the contents assigned to him in his grandfathers will even though the heir had murdered the grandfather. Although the will had been legally made and the rules as stated gave the inheritance to the murderer, the court did not award the inheritance to the murderer. They stated that under common law, no one should get to profit from their own fraud (Murphy and Coleman, 42). The courts discussion over whether to follow the rule demonstrates a discussion of principles and morals and illustrates how the principle model is used in hard cases.

Another reason I favor the principle model as a method for judicial decision making is that it only gives judges weak discretion. Principles provide a check on judges by giving them law to work with in hard cases where clear rules are absent. Through this weaker discretion, we can be assured that judges aren’t free to decide cases however they like. Dworkin explains that judges are bound to the relevant principles when ruling in a hard case. He compares this to a person adding a chapter in a chain novel. As an author writing the next chapter, you are constrained by what happened before in the previous chapter. Likewise, a judge can’t simply base their decision on whatever they please because they have to act in good faith to the relevant principles. Thus, the principle model gives