In a Slate piece on John Roberts, Dahlia Lithwick contrasts her vision of Roberts with her vision of Justice Clarence Thomas:

  The Clarence Thomases of this world — men unafraid of tearing down centuries of constitutional scaffolding in order to impose their own theories of constitutional construction — are far scarier to me. Those are the guys who probably did barf off the clock towers in college; guys with the hubris and drive to change the world without going through the confirmation process first. . . . Thomas is happiest when he's provoking outrage.

  It is true that Justice Thomas has expressed a willingness to overrule a number of cases that he sees as inconsistent with originalism. In an opinion piece, Lithwick is certainly free to characterize this as "tearing down . . . constitutional scaffolding in order to impose . . .theories of constitutional construction."

  But is there really a case that Justice Thomas is "happiest when he's provoking outrage"? Or that he is motivated by a "drive to change the world"? Am I missing something, or is Lithwick just making this up for dramatic effect?