By Ryan G. Murphy, Digital Media Edtior

It’s been almost two months since Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the first Hispanic and the third woman to the United States Supreme Court. During the confirmation hearings, I echoed RTNDA’s feeling of encouragement that accompanied Sotomayor’s response to a question from Sen. Herb Kohl.

“I have had positive experiences with cameras when I have been asked to join experiments using cameras in the courtroom,” Sotomayor said when asked if she’d be open to allowing cameras in the nation’s highest court.

It was a refreshing response to a traditionally contentious question, particularly since the seat Sotomayor would come to fill was vacated by Justice David Souter, who once told Congress he’d allow cameras in the Supreme Court “over my dead body.” Whether it was Souter’s aversion to technology, First-Amendment rights, or both, it’s no surprise that many of us at RTNDA and in the digital journalism world welcomed Sotomayor’s fresh response with open arms.

A recent perusal of our RTNDA_F Twitter feed prompted me to revisit the cameras-in-court issue after I came across an article out of Oregon, where a circuit court judge has ruled to allow cameras in the courtroom during a murder trial. It’s certainly encouraging to read this but of greater concern for me – as is the case with many of you – is whether or not cameras will be allowed at the federal level.

We’ve been down this road before. Sotomayor is not the first new Supreme Court Justice to say something encouraging about cameras in the court. And it seems that those who did have encouraging things to say, particularly during their confirmation hearings, eventually took an ambivalent or aversive stances on the issue.

For example, during his confirmation hearings in 1991 Justice Clarence Thomas said: "I have no objection beyond a concern that the cameras be as unobtrusive as possible…It’s good for the American public to see what's going on in there."

In 2006, Thomas’ tone regarding cameras in the Supreme Court had shifted dramatically.

"It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider the cases. Certainly it will change our proceedings. And I don't think for the better," he said.

Thomas is not the only one to change his tone. Justice Ginsberg, who has expressed no personal qualm with allowing cameras in the Supreme Court, has appeared only lukewarm to the idea recently and seems content with the court’s current view.

"I have no strong feeling on that subject, therefore I respect the judgment of my colleagues who do," she said in 2000.

However, during her confirmation hearings in 1993, Ginsberg was quoted as saying: "I don't see any problem with having proceedings televised. I think it would be good for the public."

Despite Sotomayor’s encouraging statement, she has made it clear that she’s not looking to ruffle any feathers as a freshman justice and other justices have expressed concern that allowing cameras would dilute the collegial atmosphere of the court. With that attitude, don’t expect to see cameras inside the Supreme Court anytime soon.

This is certainly a contentious issue and there are legal implications associated with it, but passing the buck is not a satisfactory solution when journalists’ First Amendment rights are at stake. In time, I hope Sotomayor, and the other Justices, realize this and comes to understand the implications of their statements.

There is certainly still hope for Sotomayor to be the lead among the nine justices on this issue and I can only trust that her respect for the Constitution is greater than her desire to placate justices who may have differing opinions.