Actually, if they had discussed genuine objections to him as a Justice, they could have legitimately rejected him. Instead they made it about whether or not he may have attempted to strip a girl 30 years ago (they hadn't even gotten to an actual rape). With only a unreliable 30 year old memory as evidence (that doesn't even hold up very well as evidence for public oppinion)..
Since the hearing was being treated as a trial, they had no choice but to confirm him/find him not guilty.
(For those arguing "it wasn't a trial, it was a job interview" name one job that would take a 30 year old accusation from before you were even legally an adult into account, especially when it is obvious the only reason that accusation was brought out, was to prevent you from getting the job in the first place. In many situations, that might even be legally actionable as slander, because it's clear intention is to cause damage to the individual, not to seek legal justice)