If all you're interested in is counting votes, that's a perfectly understandable position to take. If you're interested in understanding those votes, however, you do need to dig a little deeper.
What does the level of my (or anyone's) understanding about the reasoning the justices exercise have to do with the effects their decisions have? Focusing on the nuances of the justices' reasoning and not on the effects of their decisions (which come about by way of majority votes among the 9 members) seems like so much mental masturbation to me.
I happen to think the rationalizations that led to - for instance - the ability of corporations to donate without limit to political campaigns amount to exactly bupkus. I happen to think that whatever the reasoning was that caused Roberts to cast the vote that let affordable healthcare legislation go forward matters infinitely less than the fact it goes forward.
And please excuse me, but if you think knowing why they vote the way they do is important, knock yourself out. But it is most certainly no more than your personal opinion, so kindly spare me the highhanded "if you want to dig deeper, you should..." patronization.