this has zero to do with blanket pardons and everything to do with the use of the auto-pen.. which MANY constitutional scholars on both the left and the right have stated is NOT constitutional.. therefore would not be allowed on a pardon
the auto pen serves a purpose... it can legally be used (and is binding) on a lot of things.. politicians can use it to sign awards, appointments to the service academies, etc.. and it can be used when you need a signature on a hundred copies of a single document, etc..etc..
but scholars will tell you it cannot be used to create law (cant use it on a bill, a veto, etc), and it cannot be used on a pardon..
Im not a constitutional scholar (not even an attorney) so I don't pretend to understand the differences other than what I have read requires the signer (Biden in this case) to be physically present when the pen is used and witness it signing the document that he has read/reviewed and approved.. if he is not, then its invalid..
This was first brought into question when Obama autopenned something at 2AM and did not witness the auto pen signing the document that he claimed he reviewed and approved..
So.. Presidents since Obama (Trump and Biden) would know this is not something they can or should do..
Biden apparently didn't care, or didn't know any better (loose mind/memory), or was taken advantage of...
If doesn't matter which of those three answers are true.. if any of them are, then this will lead to law suits that will ultimately go to the USSC.. and we know exactly where the USSC will land on this issue since a) its a conservative court and b) its already been talked about for more than a decade..