Final answer:
The attitudinal model of judicial decision-making suggests judges rule based on their personal attitudes, whereas the legal model posits they rule based on laws and precedents. The strategic model suggests that judges understand the implications of their rulings and may make decisions to achieve long-term goals.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the realm of judicial decision-making, there are three widely regarded models that describe how judges may approach their responsibilities: the attitudinal model, the legal model, and the strategic model .The attitudinal model assumes that judges make decisions based on their personal values, policy preferences, and ideological leanings. Judges who follow this model are seen as policymakers who interpret laws in a way that aligns with their own beliefs and attitudes. This perspective posits that judges will predictably rule in favor of outcomes that correspond to their attitudes .The legal model suggests that judges are objective arbiters who make decisions solely on the basis of legal norms, statutes, and precedents without regard for personal views or desired outcomes. This model emphasizes adherence to the rule of law and often aligns with the concept of judicial restraint, where judges are cautious not to overstep their boundaries or interfere with legislation.Finally, the strategic model takes into account that judges are not only legal intellectuals but also strategic actors who are aware of the implications of their rulings. This model incorporates the ideas that judges will consider the preferences of other judges, the reaction of the public, and the possibility of future cases when making decisions. As such, judges may decide cases in a manner that helps achieve their desired long-term goals without provoking a backlash from other branches of government or the public.