Though I'm somewhat troubled by the court's rightward shift, I don't know if you could call O'Connor pragmatic.

Because O'Connor lacked any real constitutional theory to support her decisions, they often were so vague and ambiguous that no lower court or lawyer could know how to interpret them in later cases. The result? Endless expensive litigation interpreting the finer points of O'Connor's "small humble" jurisprudence.

Making decisions that keep lawyers employed for decades is hardly pragmatic.