The Department of Justice is taking the position that, well, in both cases, the court

recognized that the president is special, and we're arguing that the president is special.

QED, we win.

We're living in an age of impunity.

And impunity, of course, is not just the fact that people do illegal things, but that they get away with it.

Hi, and welcome back to Amicus. This is Slate's podcast on the courts and the law and the rule

of law and the Supreme Court and many other things that have the word law in it. I'm Dahlia Lithwick,

and I cover those topics for Slate. So this past

week, the court was finally done with its real-time telephonic argument experiment. And now what

looms for the remainder of the term are decisions that are pending in a slew of unbelievably

important consequential cases.

So we want to talk a little bit about the financial records cases that were argued last week.

And we also want to reflect on how those real-time telephone arguments fared in terms of, well, justice to the justices themselves. And we're going to

be talking to Leah Lipman about that. There's also just some tea leaf reading that we can do

while we wait for the decisions to come down. And Slate Plus members are going to get to hear from my

co-jurisprudential tea leaf confederate Mark Joseph Stern on all of that.

If you are not a Slate Plus member, you can always go to slate.com slash amicus plus to sign up.

Slate Plus members are truly right now helping secure Slate's future, doing it one membership at a time. And if you can afford to

join, we know times are hard, but if you can, we so truly appreciate it. Now, later on in the

show, we're going to do something a little bit different. We're pretty intentionally on this

show, usually a little bit myopic. It is, after all, chiefly a podcast

about the U.S. legal system. But sometimes we like to take a few steps back or jog a little

...