Not everyone has the same risks. Take child protective services workers as an example I’m familiar with.
These folks can be systematically targeted because of their job, which is much harder to protect yourself against. I understand your thought process, but it seems unfair to not provide basic protections to people working on our behalf.
Then covering you too would be an approximately zero cost to that law. Yet it would cover retired judges, nearly-judges, people who aren't judges but have similar problems we haven't thought of yet, and have the moral advantage of treating everyone the same.
That's just a reason why you aren't supporting the protections for everyone. What's your reason for opposing it being applied to everyone?
Just because you feel there is no risk of a disgruntled person targeting you, doesn't mean that there are other people who don't have risk in other jobs (like doctors or managers).
These folks can be systematically targeted because of their job, which is much harder to protect yourself against. I understand your thought process, but it seems unfair to not provide basic protections to people working on our behalf.