"

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?
I don't understand the reasons for 's recent edit of this article  not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily ""wrong.""  Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject.  I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly ""enhanced;"" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.  

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 A2. Learned Hand

 B1. John Marshall Harlan
 B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them  or either pair  be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph?  I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging?  I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point. 

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit?  It deserves to be reconsidered.   "