There were a number of candidates, and one was chosen by the head of the Executive branch. The Senate then gets to approve or deny the choice. This is all in the Constitution.

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.

Except it was republicans and it was last year: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/06/us/politics/g...

Try 2013 with an excellent quote to boot https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/mcconnells-2013-war...

Not quite any job, a job for life. There's not really an Undo Button like normal jobs.

Ah yes, he's being made a life peer with permanent political power.

> There's not really an Undo Button like normal jobs.

There's impeachment, but the only case of that I'm aware of for a supreme court justice is from the 19th century.

Well, that's a matter of your starting assumptions. If you think the accusations are valid, then sure, go find someone else without the baggage, and let's nominate that person.

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.