George F. Will says liberal opposition to Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court must be wrong because it's based on a political disagreement with Ronald Reagan and his nominee. He condemns Sen. Biden for fighting Judge Bork "on naked political grounds" {"Biden v. Bork," op-ed, July 2}.

But the conservative support for Judge Bork is neither more nor less nakedly political than the liberals' disgust with his vision of the Constitution. There is certainly nothing unprincipled about wanting a person less radically conservative than Judge Bork on the Supreme Court, especially at this time; liberal values are as genuine as conservative values, even when held by senators.

It's ridiculous to imply that conservatives support Judge Bork for politically neutral reasons, such as his fine legal mind, whereas liberals are, as Mr. Will suggests, merely "cynical" and "result-oriented" politicos who childishly want their own way with the world. Judge Bork is one of the most ideological judges sitting; that's why liberals rightly care deeply about this appointment.

Of course, conservative spokesmen have a second argument against the liberal opposition: failing to approve Judge Bork would deprive the president of his constitutional prerogative to appoint whomever he wants to the court. Where, one wants to ask these enemies of creative constitutional interpretation, is that absolute prerogative stated in the Constitution?

Mr. Will suggests that refusing the president amounts to according his nomination no deference at all. For Mr. Will, it seems, deference means submission and nothing less. One could just as well say that by approving the president's nomination the Senate automatically derogates its constitutional role of "advice and consent."

I do not think the Senate should try holding out for a liberal justice. The president's choice does deserve deference. But there is a middle ground between the two extremes of passively acquiescing in the president's plans for the Supreme Court and demanding that he appoint a justice whom liberal senators would choose if the choice were theirs alone. The senators should hold out for a justice who does not adhere to so reactionary an ideology as Judge Bork's. Doing so would be a perfectly honorable way to fulfill their constitutional duties. CARLETON MONTGOMERY Washington

Sen. Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who is a candidate for president, already sounds like a president with his explanations and re-explanations of his position on and what he said last year about Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

Sen. Biden should stop the verbal obfuscation and provide the leadership to the Judiciary Committee to discharge its primary responsibility expeditiously and determine, as The Post put it in its editorial July 2, "whether Judge Bork is personally and professionally qualified to serve on the court." All of this discussion about ideology and court balance is irrelevant until the Judiciary Committee determines if Judge Bork is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

If Sen. Biden cannot provide the leadership to hold expeditious hearings while he is running for president, he should suspend his campaign or resign from the committee. He has the opportunity to show he can make difficult decisions and discharge his responsibility quickly; now we can see him in action as well as reading what he says. NANCY WELLS Potomac

There are only three issues in deciding whether or not to confirm Judge Bork:

1) Does the Senate have an equal power to that of the president in determing who should sit on the court? Clearly it does. According to the Constitution it must consent. It has every right to withhold its consent.

2) Should the Senate consider only the intellect and scholarly record of the nominee, or does it have the right to consider the judicial philosophy? The president has openly admitted that he picked Judge Bork not only because of his intellectual qualifications but also because of his judicial philosophy. Clearly the Senate has a right to consider the nominee's judicial philosophy.

3) Must the Senate consider only the qualifications of the nominee, or can it take into consideration the nominee's relationship to the court, as a whole. Clearly, it can. Justice Scalia was approved because he was replacing Justice Rehnquist, and his appointment would not affect the balance. Judge Bork should not be confirmed because he is replacing Justice Powell, and his appointment will change the balance of the court.

Those of us who hold the middle ground on the court's judicial philosophy are entitled to another in the mold of Justice Powell. Until the president nominates such a person, the Senate should continue to withhold its consent from his nominees. Judge Bork should not be confirmed.

HAROLD W. WILLIAMS Washington