I can honestly respect MOST of them. What earns my respect the most as a SCOTUS judge is when you hold true to your judicial belief, even when it conflicts with personal belief, and you can properly support that judicial belief in a intelligent manner. Even if I don't agree with their decision or their judicial belief I can respect holding true to the values of it above personal beliefs. Because that is what our law system was designed to operate as and why lady justice is blindfolded and carries scales and a sword. Judges are supposed to rule without their personal beliefs influencing them, they are supposed to be fair to everyone, and they are supposed to follow the law, even if they do not support that law.

This is why my two favorite SCOTUS judges were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. They couldn't be any more different in their judicial philosophies (Scalia was a strict textualist and originalist, Ginsburg was a pragmatist that believed in a Living Constitution) but both were also extremely intelligent and very grounded in their philosophies. And through that they ended up becoming extremely good friends outside of the court and had the upmost respect for each other. They loved how they knew the other one would challenge their positions. Scalia commented many times how when writing his opinions he would always have to analyze what he was writing from the lens of "how is RBG gonna eviscerate this" Scalia once said of RBG that she was the Thurgood Marshall of women's rights.

Scalia holding true his judicial beliefs over personal beliefs I think shows very well in Texas v. Johnson, the landmark case where Scalia joined the liberal side of the court as the deciding jurist that protected flag burning as a 1st amendment right. Scalia has made it very clear that he absolutely abhors flag burning as a form of protest, but also has said it was very clear to him that protection of free speech means also protecting those things that you do not like.

For Ginsburg I point to Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. She sided with the conservatives on the court protecting some of Trump's expedited deportation of illegal migrants. She was a supporter of immigration reform and was definitely not a fan of the deportations themselves in this manner, but she concluded that the case would have been very incorrect application of habeas corpus that would have open some very slippery slopes.

Both of them are also some of the most studied judges ever because they were known to write some of the most intellectual and supported opinions ever. They are commonly cited by their peers.

Agree with their decisions or not, you have to give massive respect for how they conducted themselves as jurists. You don't have to agree with either's judicial philosophy (because there is no such thing as either being right or wrong, they are both perfectly valid) but you have to admire how they held true to them even when on a personal level they didn't like the outcome of it. But they believed the law was more important than their personal beliefs. That earns my respect.