With Autopen Joe, everything Depends. 
I would think it’d depend on previous cases. I’m sure Biden isn’t the only former WH occupant (or state governor for that matter) who’s used an autopen to authorize governmental stuff.
Using an autopen is fine, if the President is physically in the room and is using the autopen simply to avoid writer’s cramp or something. But it is completely unconstitutional and void if the President is somewhere else and some other person is using the autopen to sign his name, even if the President authorized that person to do so. The reason is obvious: Without the President in the room when the autopen is used, there is no way to verify that his signature is actually being used with his consent and permission.
That’s the critical distinction that is being missed in most discussions about this.
There is always one who takes the benefit of the doubt route.
To continue, the whole point of my post is to bring awareness to the use of the AUtopen by bringing it to trial. So that it goes to the Supreme Court for a Constitutional ruling. And as someone mentioned in an answer to my original post, was Biden in the room? Like I said - pick one person of those he granted immunity to, and charge that person with a crime. Take it to the courts. Go through discovery. Put people on the stand. Explain it to the citizens through press briefings and speeches. And if it is decided it is unConstitutional at the Federal level, then it should be the same down the chain.
Is this a bad time to mention John Wick?
With Autopen Joe, everything Depends.
It wasn’t Biden that used the autopen - it was someone else. Biden was not in the White House when it was used.