There's no sentence or prosecution here, it's a job appointment. I'm unclear why there is apparently only one candidate and we can't just have someone less controversial.
If I recall correctly, the bar used to be 60% for approval, by gentleman's agreement. A few years ago, the Democrats decided to discard that agreement (executing the so-called "nuclear option"). Now they're paying the price.
Ultimately the electorate will judge what was done. At the moment, it appears that they're leaning against the Democrats' strategy, but we'll know more after the mid-term results are in.
There's impeachment, but the only case of that I'm aware of for a supreme court justice is from the 19th century.
If you think that there's no evidence supporting the accusations, though, you might suspect that they're manufactured political outrage. (You might even see a pattern with Bork and Clarence Thomas.) You start to wonder if it's possible to find someone for whom the other side won't manufacture outrage. At that point, trying to find someone "less controversial" is a fool's errand.