Not enough evidence to be found guilty of a crime is not the standard a senator uses when deciding if someone should be on the Supreme Court nor should it be. Throwing someone in jail should have an extremely high standard and it does for good reason. Taking someone money have a slightly less high standard (when you sue someone the standard is the Preponderance of the Evidence, a lower standard then guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). For getting on the Supreme Court there another standard, it is up to every senator whether they personally comfortable having that person sit on the supreme court. If the people of their state don’t like there judgment then they should of trusted there vote with someone else when they elected them.
If I was on a court I would find him not guilty unless there some hard evidence that came up.
Base on my current knowledge I would rule in his favor that there not enough evidence to sue him.
If I was a senator base on the testimony I heard, I think there a greater than 50% chance he guilty and that would be enough not to vote for him to be on Supreme Court. It not like he not going to be able to continue living a comfortable life even if he not a Supreme Court justice.