Gang of Four? That's not much help--You need five! Unless two others kept recusing themselves? Or did two die or leave the court and Stalin decline to replace them? I suppose that's constitutional, not that it would matter much one way or the other in this story. Turtle Fan 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- In our history it was the "Four Horsemen" who consistently said no to New Deal legislation. I presume it was the same court setup from our history that existed in Steele's presidency. Jelay14 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who was the swing vote? I suppose meanwhile that Stalin wouldn't even tolerate dissenting votes against an opinion that his administration won, but as long as he can get the other five to vote yay, the four nay votes won't hurt him. Turtle Fan 20:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- There were three liberals, and then the remaining two were Chief Justice Hughes, who sided with the liberals more often than not, and Stevens, who more often than not sided with the conservatives. Jelay14 23:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Stevens didn't get lumped in with his four amigos? Interesting. Turtle Fan 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe he saw the writing on the wall as far back as Delano Roosevelt's mysterious and most deplorable accidental death, and held back. Jelay14 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- That would be intriguing. Turtle Fan 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's also worth pointing out that pinning treason on people who consistently oppose you is a little easier than pinning it on someone who gives you what you want half the time. Stalin was still trying to look like a duly elected political official at this point, so taking out Stevens might have been overplaying his hand. And by taking out the Gang of Four, he sent a message to the remainder. TR 00:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)