An interesting turn of phrase I’ve seen of late in Supreme Court opinion is some variant of “blinks reality.”

In Harris v. Quinn, Justice Kagan wrote:

But that view of the First Amendment interests at stake blinks decades’ worth of this Court’s precedent.

In McCullen v. Coakley, Justice Scalia wrote:

It blinks reality to say, as the majority does, that a blanket prohibition on the use of streets and sidewalks where speech on only one politically controversial topic is likely to occur—and where that speech can most effectively be communicated—is not content based.

In Fernandez v. California, Justice Ginsburg:

Yet it blinks reality to suppose that Fernandez, by withholding consent, could stop police in their tracks eternally.

I like it.