The common image of judicial discretion in civil law (and in its computational approaches) is that it is a limitation of the default "norm-based derivation" operation of the judge. This view seems to suggest that discretion also establishes a limitation for logical modeling – at least, so far deontic logic(ians) indeed stayed away from trying to model it. We challenge this latter view and model the process of discretionary judicial decision-making characterized as normative reasoning, revolving around in what extent discretion means freedom and if not completely, where the freedom's boundaries are.