"Isn't it then just an example of Tyranny of the Majority?"

And how would you call a justice system, so complicated and convulted and therefore expensive that poor people (from minorities) don't really stand a chance to get their justice there?

Obviously Ross was not in that group, but I see presidential pardon as a potential tool to counter the flaws of the justice system.

Unjust? Broken? But adding one broken thing to another broken thing will do nothing to fix any one of them.

Do you have concrete ideas on how to improve?

And till those steps are implemented, don't you think you would enjoy it, if the next president would pardon Snowden, or your personal favorite case of unjustice?

As if the laws and justice of a nation are a questions of personal favorites! Maybe I have read too much enlightenment philosophers, but I happen to think in terms of general principles in this case.

This might be a good first step, too. Read more books from a time when people were struggling with arbitrary justice.

So you don't have them. That's ok. And thank you, but I did read a lot of books. History, politically, .. I just apparently came to different conclusions, but it is ok for me to not take this deeper here.

If my server is unreliable, adding an unreliable backup is better than nothing.

That really depends. There are times when adding backups or "safety" features can make circumstances worse.

Exactly, I've had cases when half-assed "backup" components led to cascading failures that were horribly difficult to troubleshoot.

Maybe, but do you think it is good enough?

The justice system is flawed, but I don't see how adding a political dimension makes it any better.

Because fundamentally the idea is to be a democracy.

The laws should represent, what the people want. Not a small caste of lawyers and lobbyist what it often rather seems to be.

Presidential power is a direct way to represent peoples wishes. Or well, could be, if the voting system wouldn't be flawed as well ..

In a similar situation a majority could simply make it illegal to belong to the minority group. And without a way to pardon them the damage would be permanent.

You want a majority to be able to decide who gets punished and who goes free, and even the best designed laws will have unforseen consequences. If the majority is 'evil', well there's just not all that much that can be done in a democracy. Yes it would be better to live in a dictatorship of the most virtuous person in existence, but if you ever figure out how to do that please let me know.

Which is exactly what we do have: a president pardoning everyone from the majority political group. It's not consolation that the majority/minority groups are roughly equal.

Personally, I view the pardon as a form of veto power on the judiciary. Why is it reasonably that a president can veto controls, but not the judiciary?