May 29, 2009, - 1:32 pm

“So-So”: Sonia From the Block a/k/a Justice J-Lo

By Debbie Schlussel
I can’t help but notice that the sole reason So-So (my very appropriate name for Sonia Sotomayor) was chosen as Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is that she shares the life story of J-Lo, Jennifer Lopez.
In fact, the lyrics of the cheesy “Jenny From the Block” are basically the reason “Sonia from the Block” was chosen for the highest court in the land (minus the part about “put[ting] G-d first”). It’s just frankly, hilarious. Our President chose this chick because like, J-Lo, she’s a Puerto Ricana from South Bronx who went from rags to semi-riches. And that’s it. That’s the whole reason. What a joke. Guess I’m gonna have to refer to her as “Justice J-Lo,” once she gets confirmed by the Democrat dominated Senate. After all, neither J-Lo nor So-So have set any remarkable legal precedent in their lives. Neither have achieved legal greatness, and one of ‘em is about to become a legal Supreme.
Here are the “Sonia From the Block” Lyrics. Obviously, I’ve substituted her name for “Jenny” and So-So’s “robe” for J-Lo’s “rocks.” She might as well sing this at her confirmation hearing, as it’s basically the Cliff’s Notes version of what we’ve heard from and about her so far this week:

soso2.jpgjlo.jpg

So-So & J-Lo

Don’t be fooled by the robe that I got
I’m still, I’m still Sonia from the block
Used to have a little, now I have a lot
No matter where I go, I know where I came from (South-Side Bronx!)
Don’t be fooled by the robe that I got
I’m still, I’m still Sonia from the block
Used to have a little, now I have a lot
No matter where I go, I know where I came from (South-Side Bronx!) . . .
I’m down to earth like this
Rockin this business
I’ve grown up so much
I’m in control and loving it [Translation: I set policy from the bench and laugh about it in a videotaped speech]
Rumors got me laughing, kid
Love my life and my public . . .
Don’t be fooled by the robe that I got
I’m still, I’m still Sonia from the block
Used to have a little, now I have a lot
No matter where I go, I know where I came from (South-Side Bronx!)
Don’t be fooled by the robe that I got
I’m still, I’m still Sonia from the block
Used to have a little, now I have a lot
No matter where I go, I know where I came from (South-Side Bronx!)

Here’s the video (the song doesn’t start until about 40 seconds in). Imagine “Sonia” instead of “Jenny.” Their story is basically the same, minus the body (and, likely, the booty) and the cheesy tool, Ben Affleck:

Music Videos by VideoCure

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




16 Responses

Debbie, you coined the phrase So-So. Awesome. The lyrics are so fitting for her.

californiascreaming on May 29, 2009 at 3:22 pm

My problem with SOSO is she believes her life expierence outweighs the rules of the constitution. She personally knows the plight of the “little” people, and her rulings will be based on that. I want a Supreme Court Justice to Rule on the law defined by the constitution, not her whims.
She has already stated and ruled on a case where she feels the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government, that case is of course being appealled. But low and behold, when that case reaches the Supreme Court next year, she will be a sitting Judge, hmmmm conflict of interest there? She also feels the 14th amendment also doesn’t apply outside the federal government.
Kiss your rights goodbye with this woman on the court.

wolf2012 on May 29, 2009 at 8:54 pm

Conservative criticisms of Sotomayer’s merit are rendered illegitimate by the fact that George H. W. Bush put her on the federal bench. And incidentally, what were Sandra Day O’Connor’s great qualifications? And now that you mention it, what were the great legal accomplishments of Clarence Thomas? Here’s a quote: “Thomas served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from March of 1990 until October of 1991.” Prior to that, he was an assistant attorney general of Missouri, worked for Monsanto, was on John Danforth’s staff, assistant secretary for education in the office of civil rights, and ran EEOC. O’Connor, not much more: deputy county attorney, corporate lawyer/private practice, assistant attorney general, state senate, county superior court judge, and 2 years on the state supreme court.
Extremely hypocritical how you conservatives only attack the qualifications of minorities who aren’t conservative while insisting that your own similarly unqualified minorities owe their advancement to merit WHILE NEVER CHALLENGING THE MERITS OF WHITES AT ALL.
Look, Asians disprove the whole “America as meritocracy” thing anyway. If it was, Asians would be running the place. As it is, there are no Asians that have risen to the top level of politics in any party (just a governor and senator or two), no Asians lead our elite universities, and the only Asian CEOs of major companies lead the ones that they themselves started. But the only times you conservatives mention the clear discrimination against Asians are the ones who are victimized by racial quotas at elite colleges. You conservatives don’t talk about the discrimination that Asians face after college and we all know the reason why.
The truth is that Sotomayor is more qualified for the Supreme Court than were Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor combined, as well as more qualified than the white male GOP appointee David Souter. So what mediocre no talent celebrity are you going to compare Thomas, Souter, and O’Connor to? Let me suggest Damon Wayans, Ben Affleck, and Kathy Bates. What do they have in common? Well, nothing but their race and gender, which makes me just as hypocritical as you were by claiming that Sotomayor is any less qualified than the usual conservative tokens. Like Michael Steele … he becomes Maryland lieutenant governor thanks to a fluke and has done nothing but fail upward ever since.
[H: I'VE CRITICIZED SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR REPEATEDLY ON THIS SITE AND SAID EXACTLY WHAT YOU WRITE: I.E., THAT SHE WAS CHOSEN SOLELY B/C SHE WAS A WOMAN AND WAS A TERRIBLE JUSTICE. I AM CONSISTENT. YOU MUST NOT BE A LONGTIME READER TO MY SITE. GOOGLE MY NAME AND O'CONNOR'S AND YOU'LL SEE. DS]

healtheland on May 29, 2009 at 10:56 pm

I heard from a former co-worker of then AUSA J-Lo, that she does not play well with others and was universally disliked when she was an assistant United States attorney in NY.

bonzerwolf on May 30, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Another PATHETIC Extremist “nominee” from Obama and his Democrat/Liberal Alliance. First of all this “nominee” clearly has a MENTALITY that white people are all rich, mean to all minorities, and take everything from others, and only a NON White Person has life experiences. RACISM pure and simple.
Secondly, she was one of the Judges in the Firemen case concerning the White and Hispanic recruits all got PASSING GRADES and none of the blacks did. She did NOT state, on the record, that these fireman WERE discriminated against (again one of them was an Hispanic but becuase the other 7-8 were white that made him being “Hispanic” null and void by osmosis – this is what LIBERALS think/do to justify all of their illegal actins) After they checked the test, confirmed it met/exceeded the criteria for “equal protection”, they were SHOCKED to find out that IF they let the test results go through then the white people (who had studied, left their homes all hours of the night fighting fires, and some studied 8 hours per day!, etc.).
Instead of honoroing the tests, and letting the white fireman be the candidatees who got the promotions they VOIDED THE TESTS. Yes, they VOIDED THE TESTS!
The lesson is, for those who don’t know the Liberal Lies, as follows: If a black male wins the Preidency it was because of all the minorities, the east and west coast, and other liberal/extremists.
If a black candidate gets asked “did you pay your taxes” then it is racist.
If a Democrat Presidential Candidate is under investigation for ILLEGAL MONETARY GAINS then you let him “withdraw” quietly so that he can work to defend himself later (see Richardson).
If a Democratic Presidential Candidate is having an affair, and paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars with election monies, then just shout “another conservative conspiracy” and continue on your campaign while your “babies mamma” holds the camera.
If you are a member of EXTREMIST ILLEGAL ALIEN supporters like LARAZA, who wants to bring over another 20-50 million ILLEGALS family members (see Supreme Court Nominee) you know that the main street media will not cover it so ou want until later to think up an answer.
The VP (i.e. Biden) DESTROYED Robert Bork and the FIRST HISPANIC nominated by President Bush. There was NO “lets all worship at their stories,etc.” being talked about by all of the media.
Now Obama (aka: I bowed like a Muslim Marter before the rich/powerful oil Saudi King and then lied about it. Even though there is a VIDEO confirming he bowed Obama says, as does his “talking heads”, that he did NOT. WHERE IS THE PRESS ON THIS ISSUE? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? Why did they just sit there like little mindless BOBBLE HEADS mesmorized by being near Obama after he smokes and inhales a cigarette which the press has agreed/conspired to NOT take/publish photos!
American Citizens need to DEMAND that this “nominee” be asked TOUGH questions as she is going to serve…for LIFE!
If she can put aside her Religious Beliefs (i.e. Abortion) in order to Vote/campaign for Obama (who is for Abortion 24/7 with NO questions asked) then she does NOT have the Judicial Spine for this job.
Also, I respect and appreciate those who worked hard as I have and everyone I know has had to do. However, if this Judge can’t/won’t understand/respect/appreciate that the MAJORITY OF AMERICA is white (over 72% and it would be over 80% if the ILLEGAL ALIENS were deported). And, the vast majority of White People are good, honest, caring, loving, suportive, hard working individuals who love God and try to help others routinely.
Anyone, a Supreme Court Judge Nominee or not, who does not UNDERSTAND these facts needs to just…give up and issue apologies….NOW
Lastly, I am WHITE & MALE and I am PROUD OF IT. God made me this way for a REASON as he does everyone else.
Beware of CODE WORDS the Liberals use like “Diversity” at it means “destroying someone else’s lifes/beliefs and redefine our quality of life”. Their “Diversity” means (a) the White People just don’t “get it” so we have to have MORE of “anything but White” and a few “Whites” and then promote DIVERSITY. If White People did the same thing, and called it “reflective of our true population of American Citizens”, they would be DESTROYED by the Liberals/Extremsts/Main Street Media.
ENOUGH…is enough.
Jeff Schrembs, American Citizen

Nostradamus on May 31, 2009 at 4:20 am

Lets see, Sonia Sotomayor:
– Graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, Phi Betta Kappa, recipient of the Pyne award that goes to the top Princeton undergraduate – there is no higher award at Princeton
– editor the Yale law review
– U.S. District Court judge for 6 years
– 2nd Circuit Appeals Court judge for 10 years
Yeah, just like J.Lo. Clearly Sotomayor has no qualifications for the SC. Great analysis!
[J: I GUESS YOU'RE FORGETTING THAT TINY LITTLE DETAIL THAT SHE GOT EACH OF THESE POSITIONS FOR THE SAME REASON: THAT, LIKE J-LO, SHE'S A LATINA FROM THE SOUTH BRONX. NOT ONE OF THESE POSITIONS WAS ATTAINED ON MERIT, ALL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THEREFORE, YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT--AND HER WHOLE QUALIFICATION HOUSE OF CARDS--COLLAPSES. DS]

Jasper on June 1, 2009 at 9:02 am

Let’s see if I can summarize your argument.
– The only way a latina woman achieves anything of substance is by affirmative action, ergo all of Sotomayor’s achievements are proof of affirmative action, since woman of color cannot succeed without affirmative action.
I am wondering how you explain her academic achievements. Her record at both Princeton and Yale is objective evidence of both her intelligence and work ethic. It would in fact be shocking if a person with her academic achievements was not a great success as an adult.
The fact that she did succeed even beyond some of her white male counterparts from privileged backgrounds is proof only that we do live in the greatest country on earth, where a “latina woman from the Bronx” CAN become SC justice.
Conservatives with principles should cheer her accomplishments if not her ideology, which is of course a fair target of your criticism. Why not stick to that?
[J: GLAD YOU CAN READ WHAT ISN'T THERE. PLEASE GET SOME NEW EYEGLASSES. I'VE NEVER SAID "THE ONLY WAY A LATINA WOMAN . . . ." I'VE SAID SONIA SOTOMAYOR GOT WHERE SHE IS AT EVERY STEP BASED ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. AND SHE, HERSELF, BELIEVES--AS SHE SAID--THAT LATINA WOMEN MAKE BETTER DECISIONS THAN WHITE MALES. WAKE THE HECK UP. THIS IS ETHNIC IDENTITY POLITICS. PERIOD. DS]

Jasper on June 1, 2009 at 1:24 pm

The only evidence you’ve offered that she was a beneficiary of affirmative action is she is a latina woman. She’s bright, hard working, incredibly gifted academically, and has an extensive and distinguished professional record.
What part of that RECORD indicates that the “sole” and “whole” reason why she has achieved anything of note is affirmative action based on her gender and race, other than her gender and race?
Again –
– Stellar (unassailable) academic career
– Assistant DA, NY County – 5 years
– Private practice, partner, 8 years
– District Court judge
– Appeals Court judge
Put those qualifications on the resume of a conservative white male, and I’d say you have an outstanding candidate for SC. Why does the same record for a latina woman nominated for the SC scream “affirmative action?”
[J: HER ACADEMIC CAREER IS "UNASSAILABLE"? REALLY? WERE YOU IN THE PRINCETON ADMISSIONS OFFICE WHEN THEY ACCEPTED HER ON HER OWN MERITS AND GAVE HER NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR BEING A HISPANIC WOMAN FROM THE SOUTH BRONX? WERE YOU INSIDE THE HEADS OF THE LIBERAL PROFESSORS WHO GAVE HER THE GRADES? OH, AND PRINCETON--THEY NEVER INFLATE ANYONE'S GRADES IN THE IVIES. WOULD NEVAH EVAH DO THAT THERE. SHE'S AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PICK FOR THE S. CT., AND SHE GOT EVERYWHERE SHE GOT B/C OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THAT'S THE REAL "RACISM" (ACTUALLY, HERE IT'S BIGOTRY) IN THIS CASE. THAT, AND HER COMMENTS ABOUT WHITE MALES. DS]

Jasper on June 1, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Jesus, you’re a moron, Debbie.

hazel on June 1, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Can you provide any, ANY, evidence that each and every one of her numerous accomplishments were achieved solely through affirmative action?
You say not one was achieved on merit?
That’s a rather definitive statement.
Unless you can provide backup for such an assertion, YOU are the racist.
P.S.
I’m VERY curious how affirmative action helps one graduate second in their class from Princeton.
Did you graduate second in your class Debbiee?

Sophie on June 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm

And yes, Miss Debbi, you ARE saying that the only way a latina woman can succeed is through affirmative action.
You are claiming that is the case here, based solely on her ethnicity, even though you don’t have a shred of evidence to back up your claims.
You are making assumptions based on her race that may or may not be true.
P.S.
Where did you get your law degree?
Is your academic record as impressive as Sotomayor’s?

Sophie on June 1, 2009 at 5:03 pm

>”neither J-Lo nor So-So have set any remarkable legal precedent”
It’s funny – you fixed one appalling grammatical error (nor for or) since the version that all the other bloggers are making fun of, but you left in the second error (have instead of has).
The correct ignorant statement would be “neither J-Lo nor So-So has set any remarkable legal precedent”.
I’ll give you bonus points for “So-So” which is very clever.
That’s about as far as your cleverness goes.

obsessed on June 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Good job pointing out the BS of the “affirmative action” walkback, guys.
I wanna mention the “legal greatness thing”, though, and why it’s such a BS moniker, too- frankly, almost no one can attain “legal greatness” before getting on the Court. None of the current 9 did it, and probably nobody who’s served on the Court since Thurgood Marshall. In fact, I’d say there’s only two people outside of SCOTUS who have attained “legal greatness” in the U.S. today- Lawrence Tribe and Richard Posner.* So to knock someone for not doing what only two people in the whole country have done is pretty stupid.
But I don’t wanna be too harsh- “Sotomayor is J-Lo!” is a pretty clever attack, it’s memorable and fun. I can understand why someone would rush to express it before noticing that it’s completely unsupported by facts, reasoning, or even coherence.
*- For purposes of this conversation, I’m omitting incredible litigators, of which there are several. This is not to take away from their talents, or to say that they would not make good SCOTUS members (in fact, I think the Court would be well-served by some of their experience). It’s just that this discussion, if it has any understanding of SCOTUS at all (an uncertain proposition, to be sure), seems geared toward the more academic/judicial/theoretical side of law.

colby on June 1, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, Phi Betta Kappa, recipient of the Pyne award that goes to the top Princeton undergraduate – there is no higher award at Princeton
– editor the Yale law review
– U.S. District Court judge for 6 years
– 2nd Circuit Appeals Court judge for 10 years
All of that is true. So that pretty well destroys your argument as regards her experience.
As to the statement that all of her appointments have been the result of affirmative action, how about some proof of that, there, chief? I mean, I realize that as a dyed in the wool bigot, you don’t feel that evidence has as much merit as your racist and in-bred assumptions and opinions, but as a member of the rabble, I gotta put my faith in what I can actually see and understand. So if you could offer just one tiny kernel of evidence to support the idea that Sonia Sotomayor unfairly received any advantages or appointments due to her race or gender, that’d be super.
I’ll wait.

intelekshual on June 1, 2009 at 7:27 pm

OK so we will never know whether she got preferential treatment or not. Or is there something out there that I haven’t seen? Clarence Thomas or Ruth Bader Ginsburg or others who might benefit from affirmative action also included. However the notion that affrimative action is legitimate because those that succeeded proves they righted previous wrongs is a total falsehood. Basically you are saying the ends justify the means. However how about those that didn’t suceed because they were not capable of achieving and were promoted or admitted because they weren’t qualified by regular means? Even success doesn’t merit justification because the moral imperative of taking from one to another by governmental distribution is beyond the scope of equality.
Now the IVY League institutions are private enterprises. Remember Meghan McCain and KING HUSSEIN COBRAMA who are dim bulbs graduated from Columbia. IVY LEAGUERS ARE OVERRATED!! Just look at all the Wall Street Bankers and Federal Reserve Frauds, all IVY LEAGUERS and they NEED OUR MONEY TO BAIL OUT THEIR F*CK UPS!! And I wouldn’t trade Debbie’s knowledge over their knowledge any day of the week.
Justice So-So may have years on the bench but no one has ever mentioned why she believes her ridiculous remark regarding her Latina heritage would give her a better “conclusion” than a White male. That remark she made is condescending and is a from the concept that has been groomed by victimization. Victimization allows you to accept the moral imperative that you are justified in assailing your perceived wrongs onto society and society must tailor any objectivity to right those perceived wrongs. This is why the liberals allow her to get away with “racial elitism” if not racist comment. In the context of “justice is blind” then these comments are racist or prejudiced and binds her from making objective decisions. If this looking in her soul then she has failed in being blind. Well what if she said her Latina heritage would give here a better “conclusion” than a Black male? Victim v. Victim. No consideration at all.
I can agree with Debbie that affirmative action can and does put into question whether someone has been admitted or promoted based on race, gender or other forms of social promotion. Whether we can assess that she got where she got based solely on affirmative action is into question. But those that administer affirmative action undeniably put people in categories by race, gender, national origin, disability, etc. From there the competition is not based on the whole group but of the sub-division you have been put in. From there the quota game is to divvy out based on what percentage the governmental agency wants to achieve. Kind of playing baseball in a weak division. Hey the Yankees aren’t in my division, my competition is the Detroit Tigers. Whatever happened to picking the best and brightest? All done away with the moral imperative of affirmative action based on victimization. Truly unconstitutional and immoral.

californiascreaming on June 1, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Intelekshual and other liburuals, can you tell me how her race and gender matters in making a decision that comes to a “better conclusion” than a white male, white female, black male, black female or god forbid a Hispanic male? Isn’t the interpretation of the Constitution based on printed word? And if you defend her comments about such “better conclusions”, under what article of the Constitution can you hold your hat on? Now since we are having Senate hearings per Constitution isn’t it reasonable for Senators to ask her elaborate on that comment? We do want blind justice don’t we? Now as a Hispanic myself I might know more about the Hispanic experience than one who hasn’t stepped in those shoes and Debbie might know more about the Jewish experience than others who haven’t stepped in those shoes. However we are talking personal experiences, she jumped the shark and went on about “better conclusions” regarding judicial opinion. We are all Americans and the job as judge is to render judgment universally fair. However if we want a judicial system to be fair and have blind justice now where does one bring said experiences which are truly subjective to render objective decisions? She brought this up and showed us how she feels about how she renders decisions. And she said all this without being waterboarded. OMG!! Not just differently but with a “better conclusion”. How does your square fit into that circle?
I’ll wait.

californiascreaming on June 2, 2009 at 7:22 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field