Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to have a long tradition. I'm still baffled by how little punishment there was for Iran-Contra, key people were simply pardoned by Bush, or how little punishment there was for the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture, just looking at the pictures of the wikipedia article makes me want to throw up.
It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. It's like saying you're a pacifist... except for Tuesdays when you go on a weekly killing spree. I imagine that if we can survive and progress long enough to have real democracy and rule of law, our present system will be viewed a transitional period that, for all its very real improvements, was still…
It isn't, it's actually an integral part needed to make the entire thing work. The problem is when it isn't treated with the restraint due to the role it is meant to fulfill. The President is a short-cycle control mechanism. The legislature longer, and the judiciary the longest based on the sheer weight of precedent they need wade through.
Now, interestingly, and somewhat tangentially. There is a moral/traditional controversy over whether the President can legitimately abuse the Pardon power. There is a body of scholarship that hold that the Pardon is meant to be applied only when the President is acting to further the interests of the Nation.
To riff through some examples of how that plays out, (as mentioned elsewhere downthread): Civil War Confederate Amnesty, A-Okay. Carter and the draft-dodgers, a-okay, Clinton pardoning his brother on his last day in office? Absolutely not okay,as it wasn't furthering the interests of the country as a whole. Nor would Trump's pardoning necessarily qualify.
That isn't law though. That's ethos, and tradition.