Regarding the article (Feb. 24) on President Reagan's judicial appointments, and the assertions made by some persons interviewed that personal biases are irrelevant to their decisions, I'd like to ask: Which Judge Bork are we to believe?
Judge Robert H. Bork of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (a noted conservative), is quoted in support of judicial restraint in this way: "It is the attempt to discern what was intended by legislators . . . and then try to do what they intended--without adding your own policy preferences."
Compare the following quotation, from a New York Times story (March 8, 1983) on Judge Bork's application of his "Chicago-style" economic views to antitrust matters. Regarding the Robinson-Patman Act that forbids price discrimination, Bork said: "If the new economics is right, there is never a case in which price discrimination injures competition. In the Robinson-Patman Act, when Congress said it wanted to forbid price discrimination to protect competition, they said it with a wink. I don't think it's a judge's job to enforce winks."
It's not a judge's job either, to psychoanalyze Congress' expressed intentions, or to decide which statues he will or will not enforce.
Will the real Judge Bork please stand up?
MICHAEL D. REAGAN