Supreme Court Justice
Stone is an advocate in the Living Constitution, a philosophy that believes the United States Constitution is a document that adapts to the times, taking on different meaning depending on where interpreted. She also is a self-proclaimed proponent of loose constructionism and judicial activism, though her belief diverges slightly as she proclaims that Courts must merely interpret the law in the context of modern times and then support the legislation of new policies as much as possible. She believes it is her job to bring the Constitution into the modern world as well as correct injustices and promote needed social change.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1965)
In Gibbon v. Ogden, Stone supports the decision that upholds the right to privacy. Even though it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution of the United States, Stone believes that the implied right to personal autonomy is necessary in order to preserve other outlined freedoms, such as religion and the right to not self-incriminate.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
In Dred Scott v. Sanford, Stone disagrees that the decision upheld by the Court in that it declared that slaves were not citizens and therefore had no rights. While this held up due to the strict constructionist and judicial restraint of the Taney Court, Stone believes that the position of the Court should always move towards progress and equal treatment for all people and that her position in the Court should be used to combat unfairnesses.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
About Raquelle Stone
After being on the Harvard Law Review, Raquelle Stone received her J.D. and graduated magna cum laude, beginning her practice as a law clerk to a judge on the judicial court. While she worked as a Civil Rights Attorney and argued for cases with a focus on equal protection, she took on a teaching position as a Professor of Law. From there, she would head into public service and was eventually appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit where she sat for over 15 years.