courage, but his moral courage. facing hitler's nazi war machine and his butchery, wallenberg thought for thousands upon thousands of hungarian jews whose predetermined fate this good man refused to accept. it was his audacity, his courage which led him to create shutspass, the swedish protective passport that wallenberg and his team fwagave jews throughout budapest. he had the audacity and courage to purchase safe houses for refugre refug refugees, labeling the buildings as swedish territory and draping them with swedish flags. wallenberg had the audacity and courage to dress young blond jewish hungarians in nazi uniforms staging them outside shelters effectively marking those safe houses off limits to the germans and their

sympathizers. raoul wallenberg was so audacious, courageous, even -- there are many stories about this. wallenberg's chutzpa preserved hope and saved life. it truly saved generations. some of those who owe their lives to this bold, swedish diplomat are here with us today. i make mention of one as my friend, steny hoyer, did. a survivor who's no longer with us. i can see in my mind's eye this slender, perfect posture, white hair, and that great speaking voice, hungarian accent.

tom. i was fortunate to travel to budapest on a code "l." there we joined our friend, the late congressman tom lontos for a two-hour tour of that city. as we walked some of those streets, tom lantos related his vivid experiences. these were personal experiences. these experiences were as living as a young jewi isish boy in na occupied budapest. he didn't have white hair then. he had blond hair. he was arrested twice by the nazis but managed to escape twice. but he was determined not to be caught a third time. and fortunately, for tom, raoul wallenberg was there to his rescue. and, of course, tom had to tell

the story that his life's companion, his little kids, he and annette were little kids together, and wallenberg saved both of them and allowed them to lead a happy life. having in america 2 children and 17 grandchildren. for the rest of the war, tom lantos lived with his aunt in a safe house established by raoul wallenberg. tom refused to stay in hiding. he had witnessed wallenberg's bold example and even though he was a teenage boy, he soon followed the footsteps of his young swedish diplomat. working as a courier and a messenger, tom lantos with his blond hair and blue eyes dressed in a stolen nazi s.s. uniform managed to navigate his way through the city delivering the pass and other critical information to budapest jews.

and so the young man was saved by raoul wallenberg's audacity and his courage. he worked to save others. tom lantos' daughter, katrina, is here with us today. she's called raoul wallenberg the moses of the north to hungarian jews. that's fitting for this man. wallenberg's miraculous work saved many of the jews of budapest. today we honor this good man, raoul wallenberg. may we never forget his courage, his audacity to do good, as we've heard one man in courage can make a difference. he made a difference. >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives. the honorable john boehner.

>> let me thank my congressional colleagues for their testimonials. and in a few moments we'll have the presentation of the gold medal. first we're honored to have with us a great friend of this institution, please join me in welcoming rabbi. >> plrmr. speaker, leaders, members, guests, let me please offer the following prayer. almighty god, our father in heaven, please grace this capitol rotunda, the centerpiece of our nation. as we gather to bestow the congressional gold medal our nation's highest civilian honor upon the great hero raoul wallenberg.

as we remember and indeed resolve never to forget 6 million of our sacred brothers and sisters, over 1 million of them children, who were killed in the senseless slaughter during the holocaust by the nazi butchers. and as we pray for the survivors who so need your love in the twilight of their days, let us also resolve never to forget raoul wallenberg, a great light in that terrible darkness. you, almighty god, command us to cherish and preserve all life. raoul wallenberg did this even at the risk of his own, and today some 100,000 people, those he saved and their descendants, live and breathe and work to make your world better as a result of his ultimate sacrifice. as one of those wrote of raoul wallenberg, those words engraved on the medal, he lives on

forever through those he saved. from this special and historic place, and in the presence of our leaders, on behalf of 300 million of my fellow americans, until when? how much more senseless taking of innocent life, dear god? how many more rivers of tears shed by your children with broken hearts and shattered lives who will never again see their loved ones because someone evil felt the need to prove a point? when will you finally send us the ultimate redemption and heal the wounds of your people, israel, and all the world? when, oh when, will there finally cease to be conflict so we merit the era of love and peace and understanding to be

upon us as your prophets have promised us through time in your holy name? blessed memory. passed away 20 years ago this month and was the first ever to receive the congressional gold medal for spiritual leadership. he emphasized, even in the heavy darkness, the light of just one candle can be seen far and wide. indeed, raoul wallenberg was a candle. a luminary for all humanity. in his time and ours. a warm glowing light in the bitter darkness. despite incessant efforts, he and his team and others, perhaps you, alone, know raoul wallenberg's fate, oh god, and where his body now lies, but his soul is surely in the loftiest of your heavenly chambers for he

has truly reflected you and your spirit in his lifetime here on earth. and we are grateful that our leaders have chosen to honor him in his way. so, dear god, please allow, we pray, from this rotunda and chambers of the united states house and senate might go forth light into the darkness a message of reconciliation and hope nr a bfor a better tomorro. help our great nation and the dedicated men and women defending us here and abroad as one nation, under you, strong with liberty and justice for all, that we bring healing where there is sorrow, comfort where there is suffering, peace where there is conflict, leadership where there is not, and warm loving hope where there is cold despair across our whole land and around the world. your world. aching and desperate for your

hand. those who concur, please say amen. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, the presentation of the congressional gold medal. [ applause ]

>> ladies and gentlemen, miss nina lodegren. >> this is a magic moment for me to be here in this beautiful capitol and with you all.

friends and doctors. and everybody who has shown so much love to raoul as one can imagine. which is immense. and he has saved hundred, thousands of men and women and childr children. and how many are there now? i mean, i have four children. so four times -- do you imagine how many there are and how much

they could do now today and every day? we honor him for what he did, but we must honor him for what he can do for him after all these years of detention and prison, imprisonment, and soviet union, there must be a way for all of us to come together and get the truth. that's what we want. can't be difficult. you must all agree that it's possible and all join, everybody, to do something. i mean, you're also important in

this capitol and you have so much might behind you. please, we have lived with this for so many years and know what raoul has suffered, but at least we could get the truth. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand as the chaplain of the united states house of representatives father patrick

c conroy gives the benediction. >> let us pray. fw god of power, god of justice, from holy scriptures we know of your concern for the powerless in our world, the widow, the orphan, the foreigner. today we gather in this hallowed temple to representative government, dedicated to the enjoyment of freedom and legal protections for all its citizens. to honor raoul wallenberg and of only seven honorary american citizens and a righteous man among the nations. during an era when systemic brutal power was used for the eradication of those considered

expendab expendable, your chosen people, he used his place in history, his position of authority, for those most in need, those who were powerless. even at the risk of his own death. we thank you that we have the ability to gather to remember him. may each of us, and all of us, be inspired by his courageous heroism, to answer the call of history and from positions of authority belonging to us, to find you present in the least of these in our own time. as we leave this place, may we hear as you do the cries of the poor and respond with the

generosity befitting a people with many blessings. dear god, bless the poor among us, bless raoul wallenberg and his memory, and bless the united states of america. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats for the departure of the party and until your row departs by a representative. ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats until your row is invited to depart by a visitor services representative. thank you. ♪

♪ now, a panel examines how robots may eventually replace judges by discussing their hypothesis. chief justice john roberts is a robot. the forum is part of an annual conference on legal and polic r.

it's hosted by the university of miami law school in coral gables, florida. this is just over an hour. >> thank you very much. i was told that i'm supposed to speak into the microphone. so i will. this is a wonderful paper, and i will set up the premise. the premise is that he was -- that at one point, john roberts, chief justice john roberts is ambushed and they bring him to the hospital and they discover all along he's been a robot. and the hypothetical is important because it's related to the argument we're going to make later which is that they -- he was created some time in the mid '70s and he was the latest

in technology and somehow they got him into harvard law school where the rest of his career unfolded naturally just the way we know it to >> he was on the law review and he clerked for william renquist, the chief justice of the supreme court. he got married to the woman and they had two kids. he became a very successful l litigator and was nominated first to the associate justice and then later to the chief justice. and he basically wrote all of those wonderful opinions. that's the story. everything is the same. that's very important to their thesis, except for the fact that nothing happened to him before 1975 because that's when he was

made and he is a robot. the paper is about whether or not it is adequate for him he could be fit to be a judge. they have a very cute name for him as a robot. they call it jrr throughout the paper. we could actually do this, a whole bunch of different names that we could come up with for the rob eerts robot. roberts bot, robot versus wade, for those of you from the new york area, j&r electronics and my personal favorite, sheld

sheldon edelstein's play toy: a remote device. it leads me to the fact that there's something extremely timely about this paper because as we know, the supreme court decided the mccutchen case yesterday or the day before deciding whether or not he's a robot, the supreme court is on auto-pilot. and also recently that there is a controversy in canada over the qualifications of a nominee to the supreme court. a judge was rejected to being one of the three executives on the supreme court. it seems to me that the issues in that case was relative to

what you want to talk about in the paper, as we'll see in a second. anyway, that's the name of the robot. that's the hypo. now, what is it, exactly, that ian has to tell us? well, what they have to tell us is there are three reasons why chief justice roberts is not qualified or fit -- qualified is a legal question, fit is a more philosophical question, to be the chief justice of the united states. and here are the three basic ideas. the first is that they argue that a jurist, a real jurist, has to know how to follow rules. and they argue that the roberts bot, jrr, doesn't follow rules. the second claim is that a

jurist, right, has to take what hla called the internal perspective. that is he has to understand the legal norms of his society as being his norms and as applying to him and as basically, internalizing them. that's the whole idea. the external perspective, they argue, is the perspective that they associate with jrr, the roberts bot, in which, in fact, the norms are not sbeerinternal as being one's norms. they're externalized to the entity. the third argument they make is based on the philosophy of ronald dworkin. the most important point about dworkin for their purposes is that dworkin argues that what a

jurist does in deciding cases is to articulate and apply and be in sympathy with the norms of the community in which the jurist is. and they argue that the john roberts bot, being a robot, cannot, in fact, be a member of the community and has not internalized the community's norms. so all of these arguments really revolve around, it seems to me, a set of assumptions about robots and their relationships to communities. indeed,if you look at the first couple of the first two arguments, their argument is that to follow a rule is not just simply to be presented with a rule and then to have a particular internal state in your head rather to follow a rule is to be immeshed in the

community and tutored and sort of live a certain kind of life. and because you live a certain kind of life and enter into a form of life, therefore, you know how to follow the rules. what they want to argue is that a robot cannot enter into a form of life. it cannot participate in a community and, therefore, it can't really follow routes 2ulee same way. they would argue, again, the internal perspective is not just simply a state of mind. it's immeshed in a particular community. they're seeing its norms as your norms, right? the dworkin idea is also seeming to be related. this is the part where i want to ask some questions from them to

develop their thesis some more. these three criteria of what it means to be fit as a jurist are then articulated at some length. but then when they apply it to the john rob erts robot, they just conclusionary state that they do not believe that he can, as a member of the community, that he can internalize the community's norms. and this is the part of the paper where i wanted to ask them questions because it was not clear given the lead-up to the hypothetical that, in fact, these things could not be true. so let's start with the idea of what it means to be a member of the community. therefore, to be instructed. john roberts, both the robot and the real roberts, graduated from

harvard law school in 1989, i graduated in 1991. so we were both immersed in the same culture. he took exams, he spoke to people. some of the people that i went to at the harvard law school in those days struck me as being like space aliens. but, never the less, they were able to take the exams. so it's very hard to figure out why he doesn't, in fact, engage in the kind of training and discipline which is important to be able to follow a rule. what we need is the extra part of the argument. he's been exposed to the same interests that i was inspired to. he was probably part of a study group. in other words, he was part of a community. he was part of a form of life. he was part of the total

institution known as the harvard law school. so why couldn't he, in fact, be able to follow rules? the second question is the internal perspective. here i think there's a correction i want to make. i don't thid, 2nk,in fact, to o and be able to practice law, that one has to take the internal perspective in the way that they say. i think they need to take the hermanudic perspective. i have many stumany students wh other countries. they do not see american law as bindings on them. never the less, they come to the law school every year, some of them are quite good at it aened they come out talking about american law.

they take the internal perspective. the reason i use the word hermanudic perspective is that that's all you really need for a test to occur. you have to be able to sympathetically understand others and understand their projects and be able to participate in their projects with that kind of sympathetic understanding. the question you want to ask is why couldn't the john robots question want to do that? after all, he's immersed in this culture. he is under the impression that he is a human being. he believes the hype.