> If [criteria], then mass pardoning is an act of justice and not someone becoming the arbiter of law.

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.

Consider the alternative: a president who announces they will blanket pardon all white people and no one else.

That’s…not the alternative.

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.

Right, but the point gp made was that large scale blanket pardons make a single individual the arbiter of law. That's true. (if you want a less charged example, instead imagine the president pardons everyone convicted on fraud charges).

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.

I read the statement as "consider an alternative" or "consider this alternative". With this reading, the line of reasoning implied is correct and relevant.

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