The question of the exercise of discretionary power by judges remains unanswered. The question posed in this essay is not how new laws should be created, but rather how judges should proceed to interpret laws. This essay will focus on two approaches to law; namely, formalism and realism. Formalism in interpretation separates law from other related concepts such as politics and morality; this means that they must apply legal rules excluding their subjective opinion. Realists are primarily interested in the nature of judicial decision-making. They argue that the law alone cannot answer all legal questions and that in addition to the rules, the subjective opinion of the person applying the rules can determine the outcome of a case. It can be argued that HLA Hart made a commendable contribution to the development of the philosophy of law. Hart positions his theory between formalism and realism. Regarding formalism, he looked at what he called "easy cases", that is, cases in which clear rules apply to a set of facts, in which the rules are determining factors. On the other hand, from a realistic point of view, he examined what he described as "difficult cases", in which he recognized the existence of gaps in the legal rules, which, according to him, left judges no choice but to exercise their discretionary power. In the United States, the Constitution is accepted as a living document that must be kept up to date to respond to new circumstances and sensitivities. This idea seems to accept Hart's concession about "hard cases" because it simply suggests that it is better to create new laws than to interpret old ones. In the following, I will examine two theories in relation to Hart's view of "hard cases", namely Interpretism and Dworkin's Pragmatism. Dworkin's Interpretism Dworkin's critique, on the other hand, focuses......middle of the article......urging judges to set aside their subjective opinions when applying legal rules . In this case, Cameron J considered the general definition of neutrality, which involves not taking sides in a conflict, i.e. being impartial. Neutrality involves not judging the validity of an opinion. Dworkin does not exclude the possibility that some judgments are wrong and that some are more right than others, but he nevertheless maintains that judges have a responsibility to interpret the law and that they must interpret it in the best possible light. moral. Dworkin's view is that we should accept that all legal disputes are resolved using the law itself. Hart believes that there may be gaps in the law, although there are sources like the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, he still maintains that these sources will at some point prove indeterminate, requiring judges to exercise their discretionary power..