What do you think about this answer?

"...One of the main reasons that courts decide to "not decide" a case, is that the case has already been resolved, and the evidence presented doesn't change the previous outcome. On its face, the question about whether or not all litigants have a right to have their cases heard "on the merits" seems like a simple and unequivocalyes! However, this is not the case. On pg. 303 of our text, there are two examples of when a case should not be heard "on its merits." These are examples of the Timing Doctrine: Mootness and Ripeness. If the case is considered moot, or no longer significant, it will not be heard. Also, if the case does not have ripeness, it means that the case has not exhausted all the formal legal proceedings in appeals court or in the lower courts. I think the issue that would most benefit society if the court would "decide" is on the issue of electoral reform and election integrity. Public trust in the election systems we currently have in place is at an all time low, and I think this issue isripeto be heard. ..."