As far as I've understood, judges can (perhaps are even expected to) throw out cases that have no real evidence behind them. I could accuse you of stealing my car and sue you, but unless I have some basic proof, the judge doesn't have to take my case seriously.
Exactly this. One of the common claims is that the courts dismissed on technicalities and "refused to look at the evidence", when in actually many of the cases where dismissed specifically because the "evidence" wasn't compelling. Hence the Georgia judge chewing out Guiliani over their flawed affidavit collection for example.
In reality the evidence wasn't examined in courts. Nor in the Senate. The riot and breach on the 6'th made sure of that.