This is Supreme Court analysis day for the dreaded East Coast MSM. Both the Post and the Times have front-page assessments that credit Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. with taking the court to the right in its just concluded session.

Our Readers Who Comment think that's either terrific or awful. They either support or oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter. They debate recent decisions. Both sides predict evil outcomes for the country, but for different reasons.

One writer even suggested that it might be necessary to try the FDR solution and figure out a way to pack the court with right-thinking justices. FDR failed in that 1937 attempt. But my favorite comment came from a reader who wondered why we were worrying about this instead of Michael Jackson, which led all four network morning news shows today.

We have political strife in Iran, a debate about automation in the Metro crash investigation. and assorted other issues, but our Readers Who Comment are spending more effort on the story of the woman scorned in the Case of Not-Exactly-Hiking South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Post reporter Phillip Rucker tells us about Jenny Sanford, the woman who did not stand by her man when he confessed last week to marital infidelity, the woman who also is credited for her husband's political successes, and who now says "His career is not a concern of mine."

One of Mrs. Sanford's friends calls her a hero. Readers argue about that. Several readers wonder why the Post is spending its time on this story (even as the readers are doing the same) and a number complain that the Post never treats Democratic infidelity with the same amount of attention. None of them were in the Post newsroom, as I was, during the Clinton situation and watched a rather large number of reporters dispatched to work that story. But I digress.

There's nothing like a political sex scandal to drive web site page views or bring out the creativity in our Readers Who Comment, who are having a field day with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's admitted transgressions.

Sanford is a Republican, and Dan Balz, in an insightful analysis this morning, writes that "For a Republican Party down on its luck, the governor's disappearance and subsequent rambling apology to his wife, his family, his close friends and all the people of South Carolina draw more unwelcome publicity to a party that needs but cannot seem to get any good news."

There are a few Republican-sounding comments about this piece, most of which include the words Clinton or Spitzer or Edwards. But we hear from dozens of readers who employ the term hypocrisy and attempt to paint all Republicans with its letters. Among other things they complain about the GOP's Bible-thumping defense of "family values" and its opposition to abortion and gay rights. Many of them are enjoying Sanford's e-mails with his Argentinian girl friend, which have been thoughtfully provided by The State newspaper.

No question that health care reform is on the Nation's front burner. Our Readers Who Comment are all fired up this morning about a Washington Post-ABC poll that says a majority think government action is needed but worry about what it would mean.

Post reporters Ceci Connolly and Jon Cohen are careful to note that this complex issue doesn't lend itself to simple questions or answers.

Our readers complain about insurance companies charging too much and denying treatment for this or that. They worry that a public option might be good or bad. They argue about whether Canadians and Europeans receive better or worse care. Several support the single-payer plan that "Harry and Louise" torpedoed in the Clinton administration. There is a debate about the need to cut malpractice lawsuit awards against a need to get incompetent physicians off the rolls. Several find it necessary to complain about the expenses illegal aliens impose on the system.

Our Democratic Readers Who Comment are having a ton of fun this morning with Perry Bacon Jr.'s profile of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

That's predictable. But political stories usually produce a comment food fight, and Republican-sounding comments are hard to find on this story, at least at this point.

Bacon writes that McConnell "is shifting his role from behind-the-scenes fixer to party leader," and recalls that McConnell was once referred to as Darth Vader. Many comments pick up on that theme in addition to overusing the "party of no" label.

Doug Feaver is away. dot.comments will resume on his return.

The comment string this morning on Darryl Fears' and Marc Fisher's profile of James W. von Brunn, the suspect in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, is both rich and disturbing. Rich because of the quality of many comments; disturbing because of the hate and blatant racism in some of the others.

A story like the tragedy yesterday that took the life of brave guard Stephen Johns inevitably results in these kinds of comments. Certainly the majority decry the event. There must be a dozen howls about the outrageous quote from von Brunn acquaintance John de Nugent, who said, "The responsible white separatist community condemns this. It makes us look bad."

But there is a sick minority that, if not actually supporting murder, expresses great dislike for people who don't think and look like them. There are, of course, predictable debates about our constitutionally protected abstinence from intelligent gun control laws, and many versions of Rodney King's famous question, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Our Readers Who Comment on R. Creigh Deeds' overwhelming victory Tuesday in the Virginia Democratic Primary for governor seem to be mostly Democrats and seem to think they have a good shot at winning the general election.

They are also snarling at each other in a manner that reminds me of the taunts exchanged in the parking lot after a high school basketball game. Supporters of the two losing candidates are also mad at the Post -- and particularly its May 22 editorial that firmly endorsed Deeds. It'll take a week or two for party harmony to return.

A few Republican voices in the comments express support for their nominee, former state Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell. But many Democrats commenting seem to feel that Deeds has a better chance against McDonnell than either of the other two Democratic candidates would have had.

One question that never leaves the national agenda is abortion rights, and Our Readers Who Comment are involved in an often crude discussion this morning about Peter Slevin's story documenting how anti-abortion forces are concentrating their efforts on imposing state controls in the absence of gaining a federal ban.

Slevin reports that "supporters of a woman's right to abortion feel increasingly embattled. Some doctors and clinic personnel feel threatened, particularly since last week's slaying in Kansas of physician George Tiller, the nation's best-known abortion provider." The suspect in that slaying, Scott Roeder, told the Associated Press that "many other similar events [are] planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal.

Our readers find no middle ground. Abortion is murder for one side; for the other laws making abortion difficult are a profound violation of a woman's right to control what happens to her body. Restrictions such as those documented in Mississippi fall hardest on the poor at a time many states are cutting supportive programs for budget reasons.

Our Readers Who Comment have been filing furiously about President Obama's speech this morning in Cairo, during which he "urged Islamic nations to embrace democracy, women's rights, religious tolerance and the right of Israel to co-exist with an independent Palestinian state, " as Scott Wilson reported.

Many who comment express support for the President's speech, seeing it as a useful effort to reach out to the Islamic world. Many others see it as a sign of weakness and a sellout of U.S interests. Several suggest Obama has forgotten 9/11.

There was both praise and scorn for Obama's careful parsing of the Israeli-Palestinian situation about which he said, "the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."

And for some reason several posters suggested that only now was Obama admitting to his Islamic heritage, as if it hadn't come up either directly or in code throughout the presidential campaign.