His decisions, in case you missed it, come with the power of the law, i.e., the state, and is thus binding under state law. He put the monument up. He was ordered to remove it, and refused to. This isn't rocket science.
You 're argument is one of collectivism.
No, my argument is calling a publicity-hungry, duplicitous buffoon a publicity-hungry, duplicitous buffoon, which is exactly what the judge is.
A collection of folks "feel" they have a right not to be exposed to religion in a public place. Kind of a marxian thought, no?
No. Glad I could clear that up.
Well here's your problem in a nutshell. You slept through governemnt class in high school or were unlucky enough to attend a public school after the left hasd taken them over.
There are three branches of government. The legislative branch makes laws. The executive executes the laws and in the old days prior to the ascension of frogs as the dominant force in America, the judiciary decides arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.
So now that you've been given the short form, you have no excuses for misstating the powers of the judiciary, be it Judge Moore or any other judge in this COnstitutional Republic.
Now, once again perhaps you can list the name of one, just one, Alabam citizen who has had his rights, priveleges or immuniteis violated by the display of the Ten Commandments.
Failing that, you should just lay back and enjoy the slow boil.