Physics is inherently more difficult than most or every discipline. If social sciences are so easy, can you give me any insight into the relationship between culture, language and thought? Or the relationship between economics, culture, and individualism in Western Europe from 1400 to the present? Have you read Jurgen Habermas, the theories of Gary Becker, Marilyn Strathern, or Adorno? People like you do not need to comment on subject matter that is well-respected by individuals far more emminent than you will ever be (think Paul Wolfowitz, Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke).
Dude- you have some legitimate questions that you are asking but you come off as an absolute jerk. First of all, this is a site populated by people obsessed with applying to and getting into the best law school possible. So, it should be assumed that everyone knows what U Chicago is and how good of a rep it has (this is referencing your earlier claim that people think it is just some state school). Second, you do know that political science is one of the most common undergrad major going to law school, right? In all likelihood a good portion of people on this board have degrees in some sort of social science, and just as good a portion could give you a decent answer to your questions. Most people here have probably read at least one of those people you mention (not all; there are 100s of big-name scholars you could have filled in for Habermas, Friedman, etc.; we all have different focuses and interests thus read different things).
Comparing physics to social sciences is apples to oranges. They require different sets of knowledge and skills. Some people could easily do both but choose one over the other by personal preferences. Others find one a cakewalk and the other impossible. Some people less blessed than you struggle every day to get by, but persevere and get it done anyways. Do you feel the need to prove that you are just as good as those MIT physics students?
Let me break it down for you: you have a good record as a student. You do your work on time, and get good grades. That allowed you to go to a good undergrad school and a good grad school. In terms of admission to law school, the GPA portion basically says, how good of a student is this applicant? Do they get work done and show up to class? Grad school is impressive, but it is ultimately showing off the same type of ability that you already demonstrated in undergrad.
The LSAT is important because it says, how well equipped is this applicant to be a good law student? Do you have the analytical and logical skills necessary to cut it reading case studies and making arguments based on it? No undergrad or grad work is equivalent to the work you will do in law school. Law schools, I have heard, almost dislike students who take too many pre-law undergrad classes because the law school then has to 'un-teach' what the student has been taught previously (an approach to studying law that does not jive with law school methods). Your arrogance in discussing your previous schooling underscores this point- you sound like you think you are already ready to practice law.
If you really have a disability, you can petition the LSAC for special testing circumstances. If you have to take the test, study hard and maximize your score. If you get a bad score, write an addendum explaining why you did so, and why you think you'll be a good law student anyways. Don't, when writing your essay, constantly name drop and say how great you are. Be humble and say how hungry you are to prove that test wrong, explain what difficulties you encountered with your disability, and how you have overcome it.
But ultimately, if you still get a 150, be prepared to not go to the school of your choosing.
Maybe, since you are so awesome and think you are better than every other law student out there, just go get your PhD in social sciences and teach the theory of the law somewhere. You sound like you are cut out to be that overbearing obnoxious professor that everyone hates to take.