Vanity Fair: How did you adjust your approach to Season 3 as real-life political news got ever crazier and ever faster?

Robert King: The shows that work best are where you challenge yourself to do more dangerous stuff than you normally would. I think we started this season like, O.K., where is Christine Baranski’s character now? We left last season with her saying, we’ve got to fight this. The Good Fight—which was a kind of bullshit thought for a title—suddenly took on new meaning. What is it to fight the good fight—and can you fight a good fight? Or do you always take on the qualities of the person you are battling?

Michelle King: There was an air of absurdity about the second season that we had never really flirted with before, because the times are absurd. That has become even more the case in Season 3.

You had Christine Baranski’s character micro-dosing. It was hard to tell what was a freakout and what was our reality.

Robert: It’s not just Christine Baranski’s character micro-dosing. It’s like the whole world is micro-dosing! There's an element of craziness all around her. Which is comic, but also it seemed to match the mood of a lot of the family and friends we have.

So you decided to continue playing with that tone in Season 3?

Robert: The actors really enjoy it, and we enjoy writing the scripts. The difficulty with that is you want to be just slightly ahead of the Zeitgeist. By the time the show airs, we are either going to be slightly behind or just hitting it exactly. It’s hard to know [in the writers’ room]: is the Brett Kavanaugh situation going to affect the #MeToo conversation? There is a lot of guesswork. . . . We have an episode about Melania possibly coming to the firm because she wants to re-write the postnup that she has. That is shooting right now, so you want to keep updating that since it’s going to broadcast in April. We need to be up-to-the-minute of where Melania is at.

Are there political arguments in the writers’ room?

Robert: Oh my God, people have arguments! Probably everybody is in the same spirit about Trump, but there are distinctions. One of the questions this season is: given the disenfranchisement of African-American voters, if an African-American had an opportunity to hack the voting machine and equalize for that, would he or she? A lot of us were like, oh no, that ruins the whole idea of democracy. But then other people were like, yeah, but how much democracy are we getting in places like Georgia? If democracy is rigged, are you O.K. unrigging it by rigging it another way? I was stunned by how much argument there was in the room about that. There was generational split, a racial split . . . and there was a Canadian who said, you guys are all nuts.

Michelle: The writers’ room is in New York, and it is a spectacular group, many of them playwrights. It would be lovely if we had some more conservative voices, as we have had in other writers’ rooms. But finding conservative New York playwrights is not such an easy thing.

You have a few conservative characters on the show, some more sympathetic than others.

Robert: We always had the Julius Cain character, played by Michael Boatman, and we created another African-American lawyer who is with the Federalist Society—or our fictional version of the Federalist Society. One of the things we’re pursuing this season is how the Federalist Society is affecting so much of the conservative judges that are being put on the courts. Everybody knows about the Supreme Court, but all the way up and down the line that is happening. To have that monolithic presence in our court system, what is that going to mean? Will Democrats find a way to do the same thing, or will Democrats always be messier about things?