Orly should have no trouble with her appeal then.
One would assume so, but one would have assumed that a person of questionable providence would never have been allowed to get on the ballot in the absence of verifiable proof. One would also have assumed that a Judge would not rule in favor of someone who didn't show up and didn't present evidence while citing plaintiff's unverifiable copy of an internet picture on the one hand, but dismissing all criticism of it on the other.
The way the legal system is broken nowadays, it is not safe to assume that reason and the legal process have any contact with each other.
But that is beside the point. The original topic of this exchange was the contention as to whether or not the judge weighed the merits of the case. Since you seem to agree that Orly has grounds for appeal, I must conclude that you have conceded that you were wrong in taking the position that the judge HAD weighed the facts of the case.
In a round about way, you have admitted you are wrong and we were right. Considering your tendency to obfuscate what is the plain truth in front of us, I will count that as being as much of an admission of error as we are ever likely to get from you.