"[T]he framers believed that a republic— a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.'"

Writes Neil Gorsuch, citing Federalist No. 11, concurring in yesterday's case, West Virginia v. EPA.

He continues:

From time to time, some have questioned that assessment.¹ 

That footnote goes to an attack on Woodrow Wilson (I've replaced the citiation with a hot link and added boldface):

For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that “popular sovereignty” “embarrasse[d]” the Nation because it made it harder to achieve “executive expertness.” The Study of Administration. In Wilson’s eyes, the mass of the people were “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups, defending “[t]he white men of the South” for “rid[ding] themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant [African-Americans].” He likewise denounced immigrants “from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort out of Hungary and Poland,” who possessed “neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.” To Wilson, our Republic “tr[ied] to do too much by vote.” 

Sometimes the Critical Race Theory comes from the right!

That's at page 4 of his opinion. At page 16, attack the dissent, he brings back Woodrow Wilson:

In places, the dissent seems to suggest that we should not be unduly “ ‘concerned’ ” with the Constitution’s assignment of the legislative power to Congress. Echoing Woodrow Wilson, the dissent seems to think “a modern Nation” cannot afford such sentiments. But recently, our dissenting colleagues acknowledged that the Constitution assigns “all legislative Powers” to Congress and “bar[s their] further delegation” [quoting Gundy v. United States]. To be sure, in that case we disagreed about the exact nature of the “nondelegation inquiry” courts must employ to vindicate the Constitution. But like Chief Justice Marshall, we all recognized that the Constitution does impose some limits on the delegation of legislative power.

Back to the discussion on page 4:

[B]y vesting the law-making power in the people’s elected representatives, the Constitution sought to ensure “not only that all power [w]ould be derived from the people,” but also “that those [e]ntrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people.” [Citing Federalist No. 37, written by James Madison.] The Constitution, too, placed its trust not in the hands of “a few, but [in] a number of hands,” so that those who make our laws would better reflect the diversity of the people they represent and have an “immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” [Citing Federalist No. 52, written by James Madison.] Today, some might describe the Constitution as having designed the federal lawmaking process to capture the wisdom of the masses. See P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 502–503 (2014).

(That's my Amazon Associates link on Philip Hamburger's book. Don't buy the book that way unless you want to support this blog.)

Gorsuch stresses democracy as a structural safeguard, intended by the framers to protect us from abuse by the elite, who would prefer to do what they, in their wisdom, think will be best for us. He nudges us to feel that those who argue for executive law-making — like Woodrow Wilson — regard the people as "selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish" — deplorables.