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).