According to the theory of pragmatism, assignments of legal rights and responsibilities must be consistent with past decisions. Moreover, the pragmatist theory holds the view that adjudication is not really constrained by the law. Hence, pragmatism argues that judges “should decide what decision will, according to them, be best for the community as a whole.”  This means that for reasons of strategy judges must sometimes act “as if” they are applying pre-existing legal rights.  In the meanwhile, in accordance with pragmatist theory, to some extent, the behaviour of a court in making decision of certain case is not constrained by the existing law.These two legal theories are highly criticized by Dworkin. As Dworkin points out that “assumes that judges sometimes invent law, which means that they act in an unconstrained manner. Pragmatism also assumes that judges are hardly constrained when adjudicating cases. It thus cannot account for why judges are so concerned with precedents and statutes when they decide hard cases.”Dworkin then provides a third theory of law, which he believes not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law.