Ever since Marbury v. Madison, basic constitutional law has said that the Supreme Court can review statutes for their constitutionality. It's an extraordinary power to sit in judgment of a co-equal branch of government, but it's one that most people believe is important to our democracy.
But with that awesome power, shouldn't the Justices have the responsibility to read the statutes that they sit in judgment of? Regardless of whether the statute is 3 pages (in Herman Cain's ideal world) or 2700 pages (as in the Affordable Care Act), if the Justices are going to determine whether a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is constitutional, I think it's the least they can do.
Justice Scalia might actually disagree. In fact, apparently he thinks it's laughable to do so, asking at oral argument (to laughter) "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" and "do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?" He even joked that it might be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
On the one hand, he could just be making a joke here. But I'm not sure he is. I read and heard this as him really saying that he thought it was too burdensome for the Court to read the law that it is sitting in judgment of. And if that's true, then he should quit his job for something easier.
I also understand that one of the conservative tropes about the Affordable Care Act is that none of the members of Congress read the whole thing. That may be true, but it doesn't have one lick of relevance to the Supreme Court's job. Members of Congress can be voted out of office for not reading a bill they voted for. They also aren't sitting in judgment of another co-equal branch of government. The Supreme Court is, and no one can vote them out of office for their actions.
At the very least, they have to read what's before them. That's not too much to ask before exercising their most important power.