No, the Constitutional pardon power (in one direction, for criminal law only) does that already. The question is about how that position of arbiter will be used, not whether the President has it.

I dont understand your comment. Are you thinking that acts of justice, by definition, cannot also be the product of a person becoming an arbiter of law? That you perceive a decision as just doesn't change whether a person might or might not be acting as an arbiter of law.

I mean, I suppose its one of a near-infinite number of possible alternatives, but I don’t see how its an even relevant one. The discussion wasn’t about someone pardoning only black people, it was about pardoning all people convicted under a particular set of laws.

That power can then be used justly or unjustly. The constitutional balance for this is impeachment, but it's not clear that would work in practice or theory.

Typos happen (and this is an international community including people unfamiliar with some idioms). Obviously the alternative presented isn't THE alternative.