It blinks reality

From the Supreme Court's decision in the campaign finance case, I found this interesting phrasing I have never seen before. Doing a quick google search, it seems fairly common, but I am surprised nonetheless:

"It blinks reality to contend that the millionaire candidate is situated identically to a nonmillionaire opponent".

I'll have to look up the background of this at some point. Huh.

UPDATE: I've had a couple of thoughts about the gun case, as well. As others much smarter than me have observed, Scalia's opinion is remarkably narrow and circumspect. Not only is it fairly moderate, but it leaves much to be decided; the standard of review, the applicability (or not) of the Second Amendment to the states, the reasons why particular restrictions on gun rights are permissible, and others are not, which gun restrictions might be ok in the future. This does not strike me as typical for Scalia, who, to my mind at least, prefers to write broader opinions. I wonder whether the narrowness of his ruling, in the context, had anything to do with Chief Justice Roberts and his commitment to deciding cases on the narrowest basis. While this is entirely speculation, it strikes me that a Scalia-n opinion on the Second Amendment under Chief Justice Rehnquist might well have been a more strident document, or at least one that left less for the "inferior" courts to gnaw at.