As a Washington Post fan for half a century, I am at a loss to understand or explain your drumbeat of editorial abuse upon those whose dedication to civil rights and civil liberties brings us to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork.

Your July 2 editorial attacks two highly respected leaders of important civil rights groups for engaging in a "mud-pie contest" because they are seeking a mass mobilization against Judge Bork. What did The Post expect them to do? Judge Bork has made crystal clear his positions against minority rights, women's rights, criminal defendants' rights, church-state separation, one-man-one vote, privacy generally and abortion choice in particular. Does The Post expect civil rights leaders to leave the field to the pro-life and other extremist groups that are mobilizing in support of Judge Bork?

Your writer, Michael Barone, {oped, July 9}, chides liberals for not relying for their rights upon state legislatures, which, he assures us, "are liberal today." Apart from Mr. Barone's failure to mention the dangers inherent in the thousands of cities, towns, counties and other local governing bodies, he equally importantly fails to answer the real question: "What's wrong in fighting for important rights in both the legislative and judicial branches -- and even in the executive for that matter?"

Your July 10 editorial attacks senators for declaring their opposition to Judge Bork before the hearings, claiming, "If there is a strong, serious case to be argued against Judge Bork, why do so many Democrats seem unwilling to make it. . . ?" Actually the case has been made overwhelmingly in the fine news coverage of The Post. Its own reporters have dug up Bork writings, lectures and opinions demonstrating that his right-wing think-tank supporters are quite right in claiming that: "We have the opportunity now to roll back 30 years of social and political activism by the Supreme Court."

Your writer, Mark Shields, July 11, extrapolates from some intemperate language by a single member of the Democratic National Committee, who also happens to be an NAACP board member, that Democrats voting against Judge Bork will be subject to the charge of yielding to "pressure groups." But as one who has labored for civil rights, including Supreme Court nomination battles back to the defeats of Haynsworth and Carswell, I can testify that this mobilization of religious, civic, black, Hispanic, civil rights, labor, women's and other groups against Judge Bork equals in size and enthusiasm anything ever accomplished before. Is it really fair to call such a coalition of pro-civil rights organizations a "pressure group"? If so, it is a pressure that includes a substantial part of the nation.

Your July 12 editorial commends Judge Bork's "flexibility" through reference to a single, simple libel case in which he ruled for right-wing columnists Evans and Novak against an accused Marxist plaintiff. And once more there is The Post refrain against senators who have found the Bork record clear enough to state their opposition at this time. One wonders why this is so much worse than the immediate, pre-hearing plaudits of Sen. Thurmond and many of his Republican colleagues for the Rehnquist, Scalia and Bork nominations -- all of which The Post fails to mention.

The Post record over the years in support of civil rights and civil liberties is second to none. One hopes its support of confirmation for Attorney General Edwin Meese was only an aberration and trusts that the editorial staff winces at every new revelation about Mr. Meese. For 6 1/2 years, Mr. Meese has led the administration effort to roll back the great advances in civil freedom of the past 30 years. The Bork nomination is his last ditch effort to accomplish what he has failed to do in Congress and the Supreme Court. I hope The Post will not consider it out of line for this faithful friend to urge it not to compound its earlier Meese blunder by continuing its course of support for Mr. Meese's hand-picked Supreme Court nomination. JOSEPH L. RAUH JR. Washington See today's editorial.