That's exactly why judges, and others in the legal system who are supposed to be impartial, might not participate on this network. Not with posting tweets, not retweeting, not loving, not linking, and not following other tweeters.
On Abovethelaw.com, David Lat presents the tweeting activities of Judge William B. Shubb. On the ATL poll, more than 80% of us perceived Shubb's use of his Twitter account as improper.
The case he alluded to directly and indirectly on Twitter is "United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries." He denied the defendant's motion to terminate the settlement. Afterward it decided to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
In that appeal it is citing Judge's Shubb behavior on Twitter. Among its beefs is that the Judge, on his own public Twitter account @nostalgist1, posted, "Sierra Pacific still liable for Moonlight Fire damages."
To begin with that isn't accurate. It was never found liable. Secondly, we're all scratching our heads why in the world he decided to tweet about this case in which his role is to be impartial.
Being part of the fast-moving, influential activity on Twitter can give one a feeling of being a thought leader. And a fun person. But that's not the business of judges.