If the court decisions are what matters, then there is nothing to be convinced of, as you say. So far, each court has dismissed every petition brought forward as having no merit - not just lacking in evidence but lacking in any kind of coherent allegation for which evidence would be needed. People giving 'signed testimony' that they saw something that ' wasn't right' or they couldn't get in to observe because the place was crowded, or because they saw a 'suspicious' pile of votes or a truck, or some other such thing, is only evidence of people expressing that they didn't know what was going on. This is hardly surprising as you had a large group of people already primed by Trump's twitter nonsense to believe the election would be rigged, and who were coached to 'challenge anything'.
None of the allegations is in any way something that ought to be taken seriously. There is nothing more in any of it than vague impressions of things people don't understand. Despite this being the case there is a belief that because lots of confused people were sent in to observe something they didn't understand and hence were even more confused at the end of it, then their confused accounts that 'something isn't right' must have some truth to them. There is no actual, real, reason to believe this. As you say, the courts will continue to look at what is presented, and tell the plaintives to come back if they ever come up with anything that can be called a real allegation of a real thing actually really happening.
