Courts can't reject a case because they don't want to hear it (except for SCOTUS, although Thomas and Alito would argue they don't have that right for original jurisdiction). In order to reject a case, the case has to be lacking in merit or procedurally deficient. That so many of the cases have been rejected due to their procedural deficiencies should be in an indication of the quality of the legal teams pressing the issues.

(Note that rejecting for procedural deficiencies doesn't mean that the court approves of the merits of the case, it just means that the court also doesn't want to decide the merits. Although if you piss it off hard enough, they will also go own to berate you on why your claims lack merit in addition to enumerating procedural deficiencies).