Lloyd Cutler's latest attempt {op-ed, Sept. 16} to transform Judge Robert Bork into a moderate conservative by comparing Judge Bork's criticisms of certain Supreme Court decisions with those of truly moderate conservative justices falls far short.

First, nobody but Justice Potter Stewart comes close to sharing Judge Bork's aversion to all the cases on Mr. Cutler's rather selective list. It is Judge Bork's wholesale rejection of the Supreme Court decisions advancing human rights that is the primary basis for opposition to him.

Second, Mr. Cutler misstates Justice Stewart's position on abortion and substantive due process. Justice Stewart was not a reluctant supporter of Roe v. Wade, as Mr. Cutler implies. He approved of it wholeheartedly and, unlike Judge Bork, never challenged the prior privacy cases, except for Griswold v. Connecticut.

Third, the list is grossly incomplete. It omits the speech area, for example, where Justice Stewart joined wholeheartedly in the court's opinions and decisions in Brandenburg v. Ohio, Cohen v. California and Hess v. Indiana, all severely criticized by Judge Bork until the conversion announced at his confirmation hearings. The list also omits the campaign contribution limitations upheld in Buckley v. Valeo, which Judge Bork has not yet come to approve, equal protection decisions such as Shapiro v. Thompson on the right to travel, and the Lemon v. Nyquist test for church-state separation issues, both also criticized by Judge Bork.

Furthermore, Justice Stewart, like Justice John Harlan -- but unlike Judge Bork -- was quite insistent that Americans enjoy rights not specified in the text of the Constitution. Indeed, there is no sign that he shared Judge Bork's general aversion to judicial protection for individual rights.

Incidentally, even Mr. Cutler's list rarely brackets Justice Lewis Powell with Judge Bork. This is understandable for on many crucial current issues, such as church-state separation, affirmative action, abortion, privacy in general, campaign financing and equal protection for disadvantaged groups such as women, illegitimate children and aliens, Judge Bork has severely criticized decisions and opinions by Justice Powell. Judge Bork apparently also disagrees even more with Justice Powell's basic belief, expressed in his post-retirement interview, that the courts are the primary guarantors of the Bill of Rights.

HERMAN SCHWARTZ Professor of Law, The American University Washington

Having mulled over many published debates of judicial restraint vs. activism for most of the summer, I believe that by and large these abstract discussions have avoided coming to grips with the true questions raised by the extensive public comments of an articulate and intellectually able lawyer-professor, as well as the opinions of record of a sitting judge -- Robert Bork.

In his denunciations of numbers of Supreme Court decisions as "judicial imperialism," "pernicious," "illegitimate," "unconstitutional" and "utterly specious," Judge Bork has unequivocally placed on our table his consistent belief in a very wide state power overriding certain individual freedoms, including privacy, advocacy of civil disobedience and minority rights. He has as well planted his feet squarely on the side of broad presidential powers relatively unchecked by Congress and the judiciary, for business on most economic issues and for the "majority's legitimate right to govern," including the imposition of its moral views.

I, for one, could not support for future office a senator who voted to confirm Judge Bork, and I suspect that is a mainstream position.

EDNA J. WOLF Washington

On Sept. 15, People for the American Way ran a full-page ad in The Post which contained the following description of one of Judge Bork's decisions: "Billing consumers for power they never got. Judge Bork supported an electric utility that wanted consumers to pay for a nuclear power plant that was never built. Thanks to Judge Bork, consumers got a bill for $400 million."

I represented Jersey Central in that case, an appeal from an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The facts are:

1) It has long been an established principle at FERC that consumers must pay for prudent investments in power plants that are not completed. Thus there was never any issue before Judge Bork over whether consumers had to pay for the investment in the plant; there was and is debate over whether consumers should pay a "return" on this investment during the time that the consumers pay for it.

2) The precise issue before Judge Bork was a procedural one: Jersey Central had alleged that it needed the rate level requested in order to maintain its financial integrity. FERC denied Jersey Central's rate level request without a hearing. Judge Bork ordered FERC to afford Jersey Central a hearing on its allegations, and that is all that Judge Bork's decision required FERC to do.

3) The hearing that was ordered has not yet been held, hence consumers have not yet been billed one nickel because of Judge Bork's decision -- much less $400 million.

Let us hope that the debate on Judge Bork can be resolved on accurate facts -- not the type of distortion evidenced by this example.