- Washington State Supreme Court
- Justice Richard B. Sanders
Yesterday I called the race for State Supreme Court Position No. 6 in favor of challenger Charlie Wiggins, and said I’d explain this morning what I think happened in this intense, down-to-the-wire contest. Here goes.
First, though, a step back for some perspective: Nationally, the dominant story about state supreme court races this election cycle has concerned the removal by Iowa voters of three state supreme court justices who backed same-sex marriage in that state. Here, the result in this high court fight cut in the opposite direction—something that should probably be noticed beyond Washington State as the meaning of these mid-term elections is digested.
Here in Washington, in a year that saw a conservative resurgence elsewhere, voters held on to Democratic Senator Patty Murray and ousted a sitting state supreme court justice, Richard B. Sanders, who in 2006 sided with the conservative wing of our state court by ruling that Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage is justified, and should continue, because of “the unique and binary biological nature of marriage and its exclusive link with procreation and responsible child rearing.” He was, by his campaign’s own description, “the deciding vote” in that case.
Justice Sanders’s gay marriage ruling wasn’t the only issue in this race, of course. But it was a big issue here in liberal, gay-friendly King County, where more than 58-percent of voters have backed Wiggins in returns so far. If not for the large pro-Wiggins margin in King County, Justice Sanders, who at present is down by just 3,603 votes, would be headed for six more years on the high court.
So that’s the broad context in which I see this result. Now, one more thing before I get into specifically what happened:
A quick explanation of why I think this race is over even though the margin remains relatively close and the counting is not totally finished. As others (Slog commenter michaelp first among them) calculated some time ago, Wiggins is on track to end up with a solid lead over Justice Sanders by the end of this week because of the roughly 81,000 ballots that remain to be counted in King County. There are other ballots still to count in more conservative counties around the state, sure, but not that many, and King County’s remaining ballots will have the dominant effect on the race. By the end of the week, Wiggins will still have a lead of more than 2,000 votes (below which an automatic recount would be triggered). It will most likely be a lead of more than 4,000 votes. And it could easily be a lead of something near 10,000 votes.
Predicting exactly what the margin will be is beyond my math skills, but I can say this: It’s just not plausible to believe, as Justice Sanders seems to, that a Wiggins win can be prevented if only the campaign of Justice Sanders is able to “rehabilitate” thousands of ballots around the state that have been rejected because of signature issues.
The deadline for doing this kind of rehabilitation, as I understand it, is Nov. 22, only 12 days away. The Wiggins campaign, well aware of Justice Sanders’s interest in ballots with signature problems, is launching its own ballot rehabilitation effort starting this morning. There’s no reason to think this statewide scramble by both campaigns—in which both campaigns will try to fix the signature problems of their most likely supporters—will result in anything other than a statistical wash. The overall number of ballots counted could increase, yes, but as long as the campaigns of Justice Sanders and Charlie Wiggins are roughly equal in their ballot-chasing abilities, which should be the case, then those “rehabilitated” ballots will split along lines similar to what we’ve seen already statewide, and Wiggins’ overall win will not be erased.
- Kelly O
- Charlie Wiggins
And now: How did a 15-year-incumbent manage to lose this race?
The ousting of a sitting state supreme court justice is a pretty rare occurrence in Washington, but Justice Sanders knows it’s possible because he did it himself once. He originally got onto the court by ousting Rosselle Pekelis, who had been appointed in the spring of 1995 by Governor Mike Lowry, to fill a vacancy when another justice suddenly resigned.
Justice Sanders’s 1995 campaign against Pekelis is worth revisiting today in light of his defeat at the hands of his own challenger. In 1995, Pekelis was endorsed by all but one newspaper in the state (the King County Bar Association rated Pekelis highly, and found Sanders “not qualified”). But Justice Sanders saw a route to removing her, and ran a campaign that involved casting Pekelis as “the Lowry appointee” at a time when Lowry was extremely unpopular because of a sexual-harassment scandal, questioning Pekelis’s support for gun rights, and drawing the attention of social conservatives to a particular ruling Pekelis had participated in while on the court of appeals. That ruling? Pekelis found against an Orcas Island woman who’d put her child up for adoption and then decided she wanted the child back after she discovered a gay couple in Seattle were the adoptive parents.
All of which is to say that Justice Sanders knows an incumbent can be toppled if the challenger has the right ammunition and strategy.
This year, Justice Sanders ran a race that banked on his ability to continue playing the political chameleon, as he has throughout his career.
Based on his status as a self-described libertarian, Justice Sanders showed up at both the Republican and Democratic state conventions, spoke about marijuana law reform at a meeting of the ultra-liberal 43rd District Democrats, and was one of the main draws at a Tea Party rally in Spokane. Tea Partiers, Seattle lefties, Republicans, Democrats—that is, to put it mildly, a pretty broad constituency. Justice Sanders, in a September interview, told me he sees it this way: “Any reason to vote for me is a good reason.”
What caused that huge—and somewhat unnatural—coalition of voters to crack is simply increased attention to Justice Sanders.
Specifically: increased attention to his public record as compared to his private conduct (which involves two divorces and multiple simultaneous girlfriends even though the opinion he signed in Washington’s same-sex marriage case praised heterosexual couples as being uniquely suited to monogamous, long-term relationships), plus huge attention to recent statements he made suggesting racism plays no role at all in the high African-American incarceration rates in this state.
But the key word in all of that is attention.
State supreme court races usually get almost no attention. The rulings that form the basis of campaigns for the high court are complicated and hard to explain in sound bites, the candidates themselves generally have muted personalities, and the overwhelming belief among the political class (a belief that appears not to have undergone much chicken vs. egg analysis) is that voters really don’t care about these races anyway.
Clearly that last assumption is wrong, and in a contest that—as always—received virtually zero television coverage and involved no television advertising (because both of the candidates only raised around $275,000 each and therefore couldn’t afford any), it’s easy to figure out the major factors that caused voters to focus on the Sanders-Wiggins race.
On Oct. 5 The Stranger published my feature exploring Justice Sanders’s record—how his professed libertarianism interacts with his deep Catholicism and anti-abortion stance, for example—and looking at how his multiple divorces and multiple girlfriends interact, in his mind, with the language he signed on to in the same-sex marriage case. It was the longest feature that’s ever been written about him, and likely the longest feature ever written about a state supreme court justice in Washington. Then, on Oct. 21, the Seattle Times published a story by Steve Miletich that quoted Justice Sanders saying that high African-American incarceration rates in Washington State are not at all connected to institutional racism, and are more about that community’s “crime problem.”
Miletich’s article, which impressively dug inside a private Oct. 7 meeting on race and the criminal justice system that Justice Sanders attended in Olympia, received by far the most attention. African-American leaders denounced Justice Sanders’s point of view, the Seattle Times loudly withdrew its endorsement of Justice Sanders because of his reported comments, and Wiggins sent out e-mails to his supporters alerting them to the news.
Which was, indeed, big news.
But—and this is awkward to do because it involves my own story, but it can’t be avoided here—my Stranger feature also received a large amount of attention, especially in King County and Olympia, and in a race that’s probably going to be decided by under 10,000 votes (and hinge on the high turnout in King County) that means my piece was potentially determinative. We talked about my story on KUOW’s Weekday for several weeks in a row in October, The Stranger‘s endorsement of Wiggins ran repeatedly on our election cheat sheet throughout the month, and I know from my e-mail in-box that my feature circulated heavily in the gay and legal communities. This is not to get into competitive credit-taking, but simply to say that in a race as close as this one, all of the credible contributing factors were necessary to the outcome.
To put it another way: Many thousands of votes may have been moved by the Seattle Times‘ coverage of this race, but some thousands of votes were also moved by my coverage. With only a few thousand votes separating the candidates, it seems to me that both articles—plus, of course, the original actions by Justice Sanders that led to them—were the condition without which this could not have occurred.
Other conditions without which this could not have occurred: Intense interest in the Murray v. Rossi race in King County, strong get-out-the-vote efforts by the local Democratic machine and grassroots organizing groups, and Wiggins’ own campaign, which only gingerly engaged with all the October news about Justice Sanders while focusing on keeping close in the fund-raising race, collecting endorsements (especially from law-and-order types who don’t like Justice Sanders’s record of siding with certain criminal defendants against the state), and hammering a message that questioned Sanders’s fairness, impartiality, and judgment.
As Wiggins’ campaign consultant, Christian Sinderman, told me in an e-mail last night:
Many will argue that the race was lost by Sanders, not won by Wiggins, but it’s more complex than that. In any down ballot race statewide, especially against an incumbent (and especially in a year favoring conservative candidates), the key is to best position yourself so that if your opponent makes a mistake, you can take advantage of it and win. Charlie ran a strong and focused campaign, and was in the right place when Sanders started unraveling. Sanders lost, but only because Charlie was winning.
Justice Sanders hasn’t responded to a request for an interview about the election results, but here’s a question I’d like to ask him: Why didn’t you say this publicly, and loudly, before election day?
Sanders also told The Associated Press on Monday [November 8] that his comments regarding race were misconstrued.
“My view is that crime is a choice and that depending on our circumstances, that it becomes an easier one or more difficult one,” he said. “I would never say, nor do I believe, that people commit crimes because of their race.”
This statement would have been so easy to make on Oct. 22, when the initial Seattle Times story hit (or even before that, when reporter Steve Miletich called Justice Sanders to confirm his race comments, and Justice Sanders stood by them). Yet Justice Sanders didn’t do this.
Why?
I keep wondering, and I keep thinking back to something his ex-wife told me: “He’s not afraid to stand alone.” In fact, he rather seems to like doing so. It’s a stubbornness that has made him one of the most prolific—and controversial—dissenters on the court. But this instinct for being the one who radically departs from what he dismissively calls “the latest political correctness,” and who does so with relish rather than apology, has only made the 65-year-old justice (who as a young man pushed hard against the prevailing views around him by writing an inflammatory 1968 University of Washington Daily column that said Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination “looks like suicide to me“) seem more and more fixed in archaic notions, and more and more retrograde, with the passage of time.
That served him poorly in a contest that was decided by the most progressive and urban parts of this state.
I wonder, though, whether Justice Sanders knew this was likely to be the case—that liberal King County could easily determine his fate—and thought that perhaps being seen as a tough-on-crime, somewhat racist judge actually might help him with certain members of his coalition who live far outside the Seattle metropolitan area. (Remember what he says: “Any reason to vote for me is a good reason.”)
We’ll probably never know for sure, and in the end it doesn’t matter.
What matters is what a majority of voters saw: A state supreme court judge who, after 15 years on the high court, had so offended their sense of justice that they simply didn’t want him on the bench anymore.
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
God, man, you have a lot to be proud of here, true, but use a damn jump.
I think it’s important to note that Wiggins is a well-respected attorney who the legal community anticipated would make an excellent justice. For all of Sanders’s gaffes, I don’t think he could have been defeated by a candidate who was merely the lesser of two evils (as was the case with the candidates in the Johnson/Rumbaugh race.)
Thought about saying “Good job, Eli,” but you took care of it for me!
@1: Sorry, thanks, jumped.
The Stranger Cheat Sheet should not be underestimated. I know a ton of people who, sometimes sheepishly, confessed they voted a straight cheat sheet ballot. When people asked me for voting advice, that’s what I told them to do. I’d bet that at least 75% of those late voters in line on election day were using it for guidance.
“quoted Justice Sanders saying that high African-American incarceration rates in Washington State are not at all connected to institutional racism, and are more about that community’s “crime problem.”
Those evil white racists sure are tricky and clever for somehow convincing all those black males to kill each other.
Thanks, Eli! And @2, the “lesser of two evils” slam on Rumbaugh is just silly.
@ NWLSP
Lets imitate this troll.
“Blah Blah Blah….Blah Blah…Black Black Black…Blah Blah…?”
Can we say single track mind? Lack of critical thought?
Eli – no doubt, Richard Sanders would have have won without your coverage here at The Stranger. Thank you!
In my opinion, the shorter posts here on Slog were more effective than the long article. The reprints of Sanders’ horrible, wrong-side-of-history editorials in the UW Daily were especially compelling. The revelation that he used to dress up as a Nazi for war reenactments was also huge. Excellent work digging those up- that’s awesome journalism.
While those articles certainly mobilized the liberal base against Sanders, I’m sure they were read by the writers at the Seattle Times and influenced their negative coverage of his comments on race and crime. So, I think it’s fair for you to take full credit for getting this dickhead off the bench.
Unlike your colleagues in The Stranger news department, you’ve somehow managed to remain staunchly liberal without becoming a spittle-spraying propagandist. The Cause needs more writers like you.
@8
Please explain how “institutional racism” is somehow responsible in any way for the fact that half of all homicides in Seattle are committed by black males (a group that in total makes up only about 3% of Seattle’s population).
Let’s say it is ALL WHITEY’S FAULT. What do you do propose should be done with the black male who just murdered another someone else (usually another black male)?
Set him free? Reduce his sentence because he is black and has “had a hard time”?
Please answer seriously. What do we do with all these black murderers if it isn’t really their fault?
“Blah Blah Blah…..BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH….Black Murder…Blah Blah Blah…..BLAH?”
Serious lack of critical thought.
@NWLSP
Do you know what would be more productive than bitching on a comment board?
Go to one of these “Black” communities and volunteer. Help build a better city instead of spewing hate speech.
@11 please see my questions at #10.
Otherwise it seems to me like you are unable to answer, and are thus forced to resort to impotent mockery.
Note, Sanders’ victory over Roselle Pekelis 15 years ago is not comparable to Wiggins’ victory over Sanders today. Roselle was an appointed incumbent with virtually no track record on the court; she was unknown to most voters. Sanders has been elected multiple times, and has a lengthy record.
The true comparable would be to find a non-judge who ran and defeated an elected incumbent justice. No, I can’t recall any either.
@12 “Help build a better city instead of spewing hate speech. “
Pointing out indisputable facts that naive white libtards like to deny is “hate speech”?
I want black males to stop killing each other off at insane rates, and I am mentioning the facts about the serious violent crime problem facing the “black community”, and that is considered to be “hate speech” – a perfect example of the “logic” of you stereotypical naive sheltered white seattle libtarded “progressives”.
@10 Buy a gun, walk the streets of Seattle, and shot any & all black men you see. Until you act on your certainty about this scourge in our community, you are just a fucking COWARD with a small mind and a tiny dick. Better yet, make the world a better place and put the gun in your own mouth.
@16 – I can’t take your lame and histrionic hyperbole seriously.
What do you propose should be done with the black males (<3% of Seattle) who commit half the homicides in Seattle annually?
Do you propose that they receive reduced sentences?
@16
Your correct. He’s a coward. Anyone with real courage would leave the internet and try to solve the problem in a productive manner.
@18
I think that someone with real courage would be able to deal with the horrible facts as they stand, instead of trying to “kill the messenger”.
OK, Mr. brave tough macho guy, what do you propose should be done with the black males (<3% of Seattle) who commit half the homicides in Seattle annually?
Do you propose that they receive reduced sentences?
@8: To be fair, I think a truly open-minded, liberal, and compassionate discussion of race and crime would consider other factors in addition to institutional racism to explain why blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate the whites. An obvious contributor is poverty and all of the baggage that comes with it (broken homes, addiction, low expectations), which disproportionately affects blacks in our country. If you focused on poverty as the driving variable, I’m guessing race would mostly wash out as a predictor of incarceration.
Also, the fact that most victims of black crime are themselves black is problematic for those who dismiss the problem as purely the result of racist law enforcement.
To be clear, I don’t think Richard Sanders’ remarks were coming from a place of open-minded liberal compassion. At the same time, I don’t see how you can call yourself a liberal and ignore poverty as a critical factor (perhaps the critical factor) here.
@ The Coward or NWLSP
It’s called improving communities. Volunteer for a cleanup or setting up a community watch. Spend a few hours in a school helping the youth.
But you sit at your desk feeling superior with your funny numbers and racism. Your a coward.
Any chance NWLSP *is* Sanders or someone who works in Sanders’ office? Just asking.
@NWLSP
The short answer is its about education and social-economic opportunities that are less likely to be available to African-Americans than whites. Although I believe economic status plays a much larger role than race, institutional racism certainly plays a part in economic opportunities.
One example I’ll use is drug offenses: I think we can all agree people who are 18-25 are probably the most likely to use drugs, right? Those who cannot afford college are far more likely to be arrested on drug charges based solely on the fact that they do not have a College Safety and Security “force” who is basically paid to protect students from the police as long as they aren’t doing anything major. A College Security officer who finds some coke on a student will probably confiscate it and at worst the student would face academic disciplinary action. A cop who finds the same vial of coke will make an arrest.
@21 all that sounds GREAT!
But…. the topic is this speculation that “institutional racism” is somehow responsible for the insanely-high rate of violent crime committed by black males.
So, for the sake of argument, I’m going to pretend that your position is correct, and that the problem is all the fault of racist whitey.
In that case, what do you propose should be done with the black males (<3% of Seattle) who commit half the homicides in Seattle annually?
Do you propose that they receive reduced sentences?
@NWLSP
Your numbers are false. The recent demographic of seattle showed 8% african american and I can’t find any reliable source that breaks the crime down by race.
Your generalizing for your own end.
@24 shut up Sanders, you already lost
@NWLSP
You brought up that dead end topic and doesn’t deserve any attention.
I’m talking about your constant cowardice and bending of the numbers that makes Slog a horrible place for discussion.
@25 – For my 3% number, I am accounting for the fact that many of those blacks who make up 8% of Seattle are women, children and elderly. Logic dictates that black males ages 15 – 55 make up about 3% of Seattle.
The Seattle PI puts out annual year-end homicide tally articles. Anyone can read them and read the articles related to the individual homicides and do some basic math and come to the inescapable conclusion that black males commit at least half of the homicides in Seattle annually. I also access the SPD website and court records.
@25, 26
What do you propose should be done with the black males (<3% of Seattle) who commit half the homicides in Seattle annually?
Do you propose that they receive reduced sentences?
@27 – “bending of the numbers”
Please point out anywhere that I “bent numbers”.
Your post at @25 does not count as it is simply factually incorrect, since it ignores basic logic and math.
@27 “makes Slog a horrible place for discussion.”
OH!!! So my pointing out facts that naive sheltered white “progressives” like to ignore is “horrible discussion”, but your constant stream of impotent, reality-ignoring insults is somehow “valuable discussion”.
Another great example of naive sheltered white “progressive” libtard “logic”.
What do you propose should be done with the black males (<3% of Seattle) who commit half the homicides in Seattle annually?
Do you propose that they receive reduced sentences?
@NWLSP
So you admitting that your faking numbers? No official from the state or major new source has supported these claims and that makes them false.
Can you provide a credible link to that has an accurate and current breakdown?
@NWLSP: Already proven in over 14 years of litigation in federal court. Why don’t you try reading this instead of simply stating that in Seattle, murders are disproportionately committed by African Americans? I don’t think anyone disputes that. The issue is whether African Americans are treated unfairly by our state’s judicial system, and the proof indicates that they are.
@NWLSP
I think I’m done arguing with you. You routinely show that there is no logic in your thought and that your a coward for not helping people in need. You sit here complaining about the blacks, even when an article has nothing to do with race and we see it whenever someones interested in the comments section.
And you argue like a teenager, which I suspect you are.
Your a coward and a lier, simple as that so have a good time hunting your whale.
@31 – “So you admitting that your faking numbers?” No, only a reality-ignoring dumbass like you would think that.
http://tinyurl.com/no5knk
Extrapolated from the article “List of 2008 homicides in Seattle” from the Seattle PI
selected from the list of the 28 Seattle homicides in 2008….
Allen Joplin, Jan. 4 — black killed by black
De’Che Morrison, Jan. 10 — black killed by black
Maurice “Moe” Allen Jr., Jan. 26 — black killed by black
Degene Barecha, Jan. 30 — black killed by black
Perry Henderson, Feb. 6 — black killed by black
Stephan Dwaine Stewart, April 2 — black killed by black
Eldora Earlycutt, July 4 — black killed by black
James Paroline, July 10 — white killed by black
Troy Peters, July 22 — black killed by black
Pierre Lapoint, Aug. 5 — black killed by black
Jane Kariuki, Oct. 16 — woman of undisclosed race killed by black man
Quincy S. Coleman, Oct. 31 — black killed by black
Edward McMichael, the “Tuba Man”, Nov. 3 — white killed by multiple blacks
Nathaniel Lee Thomas, Nov. 23 — black killed by black
Black males (<3% of Seattle) were the killers in at least half (that’s at least 50%) of the murders in the Seattle area in 2008. At least five of the other murderers were latinos.
Now let’s take a look at 2009!
http://tinyurl.com/2aa88vd
The link above is to the Seattle PI’s article on homicides in Seattle in 2009.
At least twelve of the 21 murders in Seattle in 2009 were committed by black males, only 3% of Seattle.
Of the 27 officers that were shot and killed by criminals in the last 20 years in King and Pierce county, 21 of them were shot by black men, even though black men make up less than 3% of the population.
Keep on ignoring the reality that is right in front of your face, willfully blind dipshit.
@32, kk in seattle:
for the sake of argument, I’m going to pretend that your position is correct, that blacks are treated in a racist and unfair manner by the courts, and that the problem is all the fault of racist whitey.
In that case, what do you propose should be done with the black males (<3% of Seattle) who commit half the homicides in Seattle annually?
Do you propose that they receive reduced sentences?
Why can’t anyone answer this simple question?
Yes, the courts are racist (for the sake of discussion). Still, what should be done with all those black murderers? Do they get a “black criminal discount”?
@NWLSP: If you can’t be bothered with clicking on a link, here is an excerpt from the opinion of the Ninth Circuit (the second highest court in the country):
@NWLSP
Holy Shit!! We have to hear from you ever GODDAMN day over 28 homicides in a city the size of Seattle. Do you understand what a fool you are?
For christs sake!! 28 fucking homicides and your bitching to some strangers on the internet!!
THEN IN 2009 it’s 21!!! Your a complete moron if you think this city has a problem.
Talking heads and keyboard addicts can trade jabs and gaffes ’til the cows come home and it won’t change Mr. Wiggins’ victory.
Congratulations, Mr. Wiggins!
As for the people who think King County decides many elections in Washington… well, duh, when votes are counted, ours are more numerous! If you don’t like majority rule, move to a totalitarian state governed by religious nut jobs who don’t have to be elected because their god told them to rule.
If Obama had not been elected in 2008, that’s exactly what we would be living in now, and unless we can emasculate and defenestrate the GOP/TP nut jobs in congress and WA’s legislature — and convince Tim Eyman to move to Mars, we may end up living in religious oligarchy dominated by plutocrats. Now, that’s a scary thought!
Get out and vote in EVERY election! Primaries are especially important because so many people do not bother to vote. Look at the idiots and geeks who managed to get on general election ballots in Delaware, Alaska and dozens of other states! Sheesh!
@NWLSP: I don’t think a single person has asked for a “black criminal discount” or reduced penalties for African Americans. All anyone is asking for is that there not be an increased criminal penalty for being black. The evidence proves that there is, in fact, such a penalty. Justice Sanders claimed that he knew of no such evidence, which is laughable on its face, since the Ninth Circuit opinion was issued in January of this year and was widely publicized.
@37 — more than half of the victims of those 28 murders in 2008 and 21 murders in 2009 were black people.
Don’t you care about black people? What the fuck is wrong with you?
“Your a complete moron if you think this city has a problem.”
Go tell the surviving families of those 49 dead people that their dead relatives are no big deal and are inconsequential to naive white libtards like you.
Also, at least I know how to spell “you’re” and “liar”.
@NWLSP
I actually have a job and arguing with your little mind has me in a rush. Sorry for the misspellings but it doesn’t change that fact that your a liar and a racist.
Good luck with you guestimated figures and cowardice attitude.
Kids, I suspect NWSLP is just Phase II of the Loveschild troll-bot project.
@44 is mostly correct.
I’m sorry if anyone reads through all of that. It just aggravates me when people are so ignorant and lazy.
@46: I think you are both ignorant and lazy.
“The difference between stupid & intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations – in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.” -Neal Stephenson
The stupid(s) on this thread won’t be able to recognize if or how this applies to them. However, he/they are doing an excellent job of demonstrating this principle.
2 black males shot and killed downtown by 2 other black males during a 2 day period just about a week and a half ago.
Nope, no problem, nosirree, move along, nothing to see here, just keep being politically correct and ignoring facts.
@46 “It just aggravates me when people are so ignorant and lazy.”
It always gives me the BIGGEST LAFF when people like you call me “ignorant”. You obviously don’t even know what the word “ignorant” means, you just think it is some kind of magic word that you can say to make all the facts that contradict your naive religious faith-based worldview vanish!
YOU were the one who did not know that black males make up about 3% of Seattle (= ACTUAL IGNORANCE).
YOU were the one who did not know that black males commit at least half of all homicides in Seattle annually (= ACTUAL IGNORANCE).
YOU were the one who continues to IGNORE the facts, even when they are obvious and even when they are pointed out to you (= DELIBERATE IGNORANCE).
So go ahead, ignorant one, say your magic word all you want. It is impotent and you don’t even know what it actually means.
@42 “I actually have a job and arguing with your little mind has me in a rush. Sorry for the misspellings but it doesn’t change that fact that your [SIC] a liar and a racist.”
So what is your excuse this time?
ScottSut @ #33 : “I think I’m done arguing with you.”
I guess this means that “your a lier” [sic].