Elena Kagan just admitted, "I have no grand theory of constitutional interpretation. I’m a pragmatist and rely on various sources."
This IS a Constitutional theory. It is a constitutional theory in which the Constitution is utterly irrelevant. When you say that you’re a "pragmatist," what you’re really saying is that you’re willing to do anything to put your policies into place. When you "rely on various sources," you’re saying you don’t rely exclusively on the Constitution and its history.
"Pragmatism" as a label is utterly worthless. It merely allows judges to do what they want and say they’re being "practical." The Constitution is not about practicality — that’s what legislation is supposed to be for. The Constitution is about ensuring that government stays within its prescribed bounds, no matter how inconvenient.