The objective of this article is to establish whether the judges depend on relevant facts, judicial rules, and the law when making their judgments or they use extraneous factors such as what a judge eats, personal ideology, beliefs, or the cultural and political environment. The discourse between the two sides is incomplete without exploring the grand theories: formalism and realism. The antimony between the two theories resulted in theoretical analysis and empirical research. The realism challenged the existing logical reasoning and legal rules that judges use in making their judgment as they contend that judges applying rules and law in their decision-making process are irrational and mechanical. Formalism insists on using the judicial rules and the law in making decisions as opposed to extraneous factors, which realists contend should be the basis for decision making with laws and rules only to support the findings. The continental legal theory holds that legal realism is a hard-nosed, down-to-earth, and practical school of thought that is opposed to mechanical and scientific theories. The scholarly analysis of the judicial decision-making process brings into focus the conduct of judicial officers and whether they base their reasoning on extrajudicial issues. However, the discussion should avoid denigrating into an attack on the personality of judges as it undermines the rule of law.