I am not arguing the Constitutionality of Moore's monument, but whether or not he has the right to ignore the courts. I submit that he doesn't have that right, unless the courts' ruling violates God's law. Since there is nothing in Scripture that requires posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, the courts' ruling doesn't violate God's law, and thus Moore is bound not only by they Constitution, but also by Paul's command to obey those in authority, to remove the monument.
Clearly Thompson believed the Constitution or some other source of law (case law for instance) required the monument to be removed. We may not agree with him, but he is the governing authority in this case, per the Constitution, which states the SCOTUS and inferior courts have the power in all cases arising under the Constitution.
But this is unjustified circular reasoning. You are assuming that a court's refusal to follow the Constitution is not a violation of God's law. The whole point is, we believe the court certainly is violating God's law by ignoring the constitution at this point since this first amendment case is consistent with God's law.
The whole thing can be boiled down to this question: If the courts violate the constitution (which you admitted they sometimes do), are they not also violating God's law (when, in fact, his laws are glorified in such cases as Judge Moore)?
If you are conceding the constitutional argument, then it follows that CJ Moore had the right to disobey an unconstitutional court order.
Clearly Thompson believed the Constitution or some other source of law (case law for instance) required the monument to be removed.
Judge Thompson's beliefs do not trump the Constitution. The constitutional argument still has some unanswered questions. The more important one is, what Congress-made law did Justice Moore violate? You still haven't answered it.