As one example, judges are not permitted to speak publicly on political matters or endorse candidates for certain public offices. While that is a limitation of their free speech first amendment rights, it does serve society's best interests. Prior to 1832, the British faced a similar problem. The Great Reform Act of 1832, passed to prevent violent revolution against the nobility, stripped them of their control of the House of Commons. The historical legal precedent was thus created where our own law originates, for restoring constitutional government, without the necessity for doing violence to an elitist group unconstitutionally exercising power under color of law.
Lawyers are the proper people to control government because that is their training.
Lawyers argue that government is about laws and that is their training. That is a false argument known as secundum quid. Thus, while it is true that as a rule decisions are made by the people best trained to do so, that is not true in all cases. The most experienced and knowledgeable military minds are constitutionally limited to the power of advising. The Constitution makes representatives drawn from all walks of life, not the technical experts, collectively responsible for all public policy decision making.