Bull. The establishment clause denies the Fed the ability to force you to follow a certain religion. Absence of the notion of separation imposed by fiat as it has been does no damage to the constitution or our rights.
As for your last sentence, it would be a complete, unmitigated disaster for the rule of law -- and a violation of his oath to uphold the federal and Alabama constitutions -- for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to take that position.
No, it would not. No more than it was the last time tyrants tried to supplant the constitution with their will. This has been done before in our country's history and we have the example of the forefathers to look to. This isn't about the rule of law. It's about the unruly nature of men who abuse the law in order to disabuse us of our rights. The law isn't what is done harm, it is the men who abuse it that are done appropriately with. The constitution and our Bill of Rights trump law, not the other way around. If a law is in contention or an interpretation is in contention, then one or both by default must yield to the Constitution. Try selling the unbearable damage story elsewhere.
Yes, and the same Constitution also vests the federal judiciary with the ultimate authority to decide what is and isn't constitutional. Here, the federal courts have spoken. They say that the monument violates the establishment clause, which is part of the First Amendment. For a sitting state supreme court judge who has taken an oath to uphold the constitution, that should be the end of the story, even if he disagrees with the decision.