I think we need something like this for someone on death row or something, maybe.

Why, though? What makes the person occupying the position of president uniquely qualified to make a decision in cases like this? If you have a judicial system that has been found to apply the law fairly, yet can still have its rulings overturned on a whim, doesn't that make a mockery of the system?

It feels like an equivalent of a boss saying, "I know you and your team did months of research to come to the decision that you did, but I'm going to go in a different direction anyway. Not because I did more research than you, just because I feel like I know better than all of you".

Unless theres' some kind of reason that I've overlooked.

Beyond the scope of this thread, I know, but the concept of president seems absurd to me. Especially the way it's implemented in the USA.