The more I read about the John Roberts of the 1980s, the more I like him. I particularly like his disregard for three Republican congresswomen who were upset that the Reagan administration was against comparable worth as a principle to give women the right to sue for gender discrimination because they earned less for jobs that women typically do then men do for jobs that men typically fill. And one of those congresswomen was Olympia Snowe, who today must vote on his nomination.

In a scenario the brash young attorney could hardly have imagined at the time, one of the women he tartly dismissed in the internal memo, Senator Snowe of Maine, now has a vote on his nomination to the highest court in the land.

"It is difficult to exaggerate the perniciousness of the comparable worth theory," Judge Roberts wrote to his boss, Fred Fielding, the White House counsel, on February 3, 1984. "It mandates nothing less than central planning of the economy by judges."

"I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept," Judge Roberts wrote to Mr. Fielding a few weeks later, on February 20.

Judge Roberts, who was 29 at the time, even suggested the congresswomen, Ms. Snowe, Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, and Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island, might be Marxists. "Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender,'" Judge Roberts quipped.

The women lawmakers had written to President Reagan's deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver, urging the administration to stay out of a court case that led a federal judge in Seattle to order Washington state to pay 15,000 women a total of up to $500 million in compensation because they had consistently received about 20% less in pay for jobs deemed to be of comparable worth.

The "Republican female representatives," as Judge Roberts referred to them, appeared to win that round. The Reagan administration made clear its opposition to the concept of government-determined "comparable worth" but decided to stay out of the court fray. The following year, a federal appeals court reversed the lower court's decision.

Ms. Snowe reacted cautiously yesterday to the news that Judge Roberts summarily dismissed her stance in the pay equity debate. "I understand the 1984 memo authored by John Roberts - one of 5,000 documents released by the Administration today - demonstrates that he and I had a difference of opinion on how to legally approach the matter of valuing women's contributions in the workforce," the senator said in a circumspect prepared statement. "Hopefully, 21 years later, Judge Roberts possesses an openness with respect to issues of gender-based wage discrimination," she said, adding that she considers the issue "critical."

Discriminating between a male and female doing the same job is illegal. But saying that librarians should earn the same salary as construction workers is silly. Fortunately, the federal appeals court realized this. Can you imagine the suits that would have blossomed across the country as women decided that they should be earning more just because some economist made up comparability scales of payment between two entirely different jobs? Comparable worth is a pernicious idea and I'm glad that he recognizes it.

Now, the spotlight will be on Snowe - just the way she likes it. Nothing suits her better than bucking her party and getting all those nice laudatory articles about what a maverick she is. But the undercurrent will be: will she vote against a guy just because he made fun of her 20 years ago in a memo? Will she insist that her reading of the law is better than the federal appeals court and that he is wrong-headed because he took a view that the appeals court also took? In a way, that might make her more likely to vote for him so that she doesn't appear to be holding a personal grudge against his jibes.