"The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process."

Said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking yesterday at the University of Chicago law school, ostensibly about Roe v. Wade, but inferentially, perhaps, about same-sex marriage (the issue before the Court right now).

Ginsburg would have rather seen the justices make a narrower decision that struck down only the Texas law that brought the matter before the court. That law allowed abortions only to save a mother's life.

A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights, she said. She added that it might also have denied opponents the argument that abortion rights resulted from an undemocratic process in the decision by "unelected old men."

Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed "judicial restraint" and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions.