Clearly, Thomas is the originalist.
Bless him for being the conservative jurist that he is, but Scalia's argument smacks of expediency.
Scalia, I think, believes that to maintain the legitimacy of the Court, one must regard previous Supreme Court decisions as correct, and interpret the Constitution in such a way as to avoid contradiction. While he is more than willing to stretch to find some reason why an earlier decision isn't applicable to a case before him, he is unwilling to recognize that the Court has, on occasions, rendered decisions that were just plain illegitimate.
Scalia is not a conservative justice, at least if we’re being intellectually honest. He creates governmental rights out of thin air. If he votes to strike down Roe v. Wade, it will be because of his personal opposition to abortion, not his respect for the Constitution and our rule of law. Justice Thomas may disagree with abortion as well, but if the Constitution spelled out a right to abortion, he would be the first one to uphold it. Similarly, Justice Scalia voted the way he did in Gonzales v. Raich because he is personally opposed to drug use. The guy is just as bad as the leftists on some constitutional issues, although Thomas and Scalia do agree a substantial majority of the time.
Much as I love Scalia, he sometimes shows a disturbing tendency to statist authoritarianism. Sometimes his opinions boil down to "But what will the police say?". I don't care whether they like a ruling or not; the Constitution says whatever the Constitution says, which is the same thing it said the day before they were sworn in as officers. If they've been getting away for decades or centuries with some practice that on reflection is repugnant to the Constitution, that doesn't argue in favor of letting them continue, it means they should somehow be punished or dis-empowered in some way to compensate for the excess power they've BEEN exercising and take away the incentive to do similar things in the future.