1) A court refusing to hear a case for non-evidentiary reasons has no bearing on the underlying facts of the case. If Person A throws a brick through Person B's window, and Person C tries to sue Person A over it, then the court will refuse to hear the case because Person C has no right to sue, but the court's decision says nothing about whether Person A threw the brick. This is not complicated. Our legal system becomes highly problematic when the court refuses to let Person B sue in this hypothetical, however, and that's analogous to many of the election-related lawsuits.

2) Courts do not determine truth. They settle questions of law under a strict set of legal guidelines, and, of course, they don't determine anything when they refuse even to hear a case.