Since the Volokh Conspiracy sold out, you can't just go on their site and say, "hey, what you're saying is nonsense."
I'd had an ongoing argument with Prof. Kerr as to his belief that magistrates can't refuse to sign a warrant because they think it will violate the Fourth Amendment.
No, that's really his position. He thinks that all the magistrate may do is determine if probable cause exists, they may not determine that the search or seizure will be unreasonable. Why does he think this? Why do academics think anything?
What I don't recall from that bizarre argument was his arguments today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/28/courts-grapple-with-the-mosaic-theory-of-the-fourth-amendment/
No factual record? What does he think a request for a warrant is? Is he of the opinion that a warrant cannot be requested through sworn testimony? That a judge may not ask questions of the officers involved?
If he were just an academic, I'd understand his weirdness, but since he did spend time with the DOJ, I gotta tell ya folks, I can't figure out why the man is so incapable of understanding the simplest things.
But I will agree, these are good times for those who love the Fourth Amendment.