I find myself somewhat conflicted on this. In general, I don't think race and gender should be factors in the selection of SCOTUS justices (and, yes, I recognize this view is a critique of their use by previous presidents, including Reagan, Bush I, and Trump, among many others). I also think it's not a great idea to give any one politician veto power over a SCOTUS pick - especially when a different nominee can be confirmed anyway.
That said, this case may be an exception because James Clyburn, by backing Biden in the South Carolina primary, may well have saved the Republic from the horror of a Trump vs. Bernie Sanders election!
If the price of that is putting his preferred candidate on the Supreme Court, it's well worth paying. Indeed, if Caligula had saved us in the same way, and the price was putting his proverbial horse on the Supreme Court, I would gladly pay that price too. And Judge Childs DOES meet reasonable minimum standards for the Court. It's just debatable whether she's better than the available alternatives (who arguably have better traditional credentials, though some of those traditions are dubious).
In sum, I'm tentatively inclined to say Biden should give Clyburn what he wants, assuming that was indeed the deal they agreed to in 2020. It would set a good precedent for the next time we need to make a deal with a politician to save the nation.
But I fully recognize this stance - even my tentative endorsement of it - is open to many kinds of objections.