Again, Gorsuch's white whale is the administrative state, the proliferation of agencies in the US. The agencies Congress created and placed somewhere between the legislative branch and the executive branch: Congress creates by statute, delegates some of its powers to the agency, and executive gets to appoint the agency head and set agency policy within Congress' statutory delegation to the agency. Agencies are undemocratic, no question, because no one in an agency is elected, but that agency does a whole lot of regulating. All this shit about Presidential appointment power and firing power has to do with theoretically attempting to make agencies more democratically responsive. On the other hand, agencies do things that Congress is institutionally incapable of doing: they provide expertise that Congress lacks; they are capable of implementing regulations relatively swiftly in response to new developments. I've never read Gorsuch's, or any of the other administrative state critics' scholarship on the matter. But these are the "political science" or governmental theories broadly in favor and against agencies. It appears that Gorsuch would eliminate all such agencies and force all of the issues they address back onto Congress. Which might be representationally/democratically ideal. But practically it's a fucking shit show. Our Congress can't get out of its own fucking way, let alone address all the multitude of issues arising in modern life. No FDA? No Patent Office or Copyright Office? Carried to its extreme, no DOJ, no DOD, no DOS. It would be corporate Thunderdome. But I believe that's how Gorsuch is using the Jackson quote above: The law made by parliamentary deliberations. A side effect of dismantling the administrative state is that executive power is reduced in that there is no longer an agency head appointment and "setting the policy direction" of the agency. I'm not sure how that affects his view of executive power more broadly.