That is a matter of opinion, and depends on how one values various qualifications.
Speaking for myself, the various intersectional boxes that could be checked have essentially zero value for me: race, gender or gender identity, disabled status, SES background, sexual preference, etc, because those pertain to who the person is, rather than how they will do their job. And selecting people based on who they are basically creates “a nation of men” (with apologies to feminists) rather than “a nation of laws”, and I think the merits of the latter over the former have already been hashed out, at some considerable expense, in the past.
All of the names being bandied about seem to have extensive qualifications. If race or gender is the tipping point that decides they're to be a Supreme Court Justice does that mean the quality of the court is diminished? If so, how? The basic qualifications are still there. Ronald Reagan announced during his first campaign that if elected one of his first appointments to the court would be a woman, and he followed through with Sandra Day O'Conner. Amy Coney Barrett is on the court now because she's a woman. Does that mean that either of them are somehow less qualified than others for the job? I just don't think so.