Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s law license will be suspended Thursday, leaving Pennsylvanians not only without a state budget but now without a top prosecutor.

Kane, a first-term Democrat from Scranton, was charged in August with perjury, official oppression and other offenses for allegedly leaking secret grand jury material to a newspaper and then lying about it.

Surprisingly, there’s no law forbidding a nonlawyer from holding the office of attorney general. Kane is allowed to stay on as administrator of the AG’s office but will not be allowed to practice law.

Beyond that distinction is anybody’s guess.

Legal experts and former attorneys general say the state Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision to revoke her license leaves a great deal unresolved about the role she will play or which official acts she can perform without violating rules against the unlicensed practice of law.

When the high court announced the suspension Sept. 21, it said explicitly it was not removing her from the independently elected state office.

In the meantime, Kane has not spoken about where she will draw the line and what part of her job she will no longer do. What she has done is continue to stir her allegation of an “old boys” culture in the state-level justice system that opposes an ambitious woman AG.

Her allegation already has forced the resignation of one justice and appears possibly to have snared another.

Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery resigned last year after the judicial conduct board suspended him for sending or receiving more than 200 sexually explicit e-mails.

Two weeks ago, Kane gave the high court and various state ethics agencies more than 1,000 e-mails sent to the private Yahoo e-mail account of Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin. She described some of the e-mails as racially offensive and misogynistic pornography.

Eakin, 66, issued an apology last week, saying it’s “disconcerting and embarrassing to find others searching years of private personal e-mails looking for and publicizing any insensitive content.” He also expressed anger over the release of his personal e-mails, which were sent to his private Yahoo account and stored on a state-owned computer. Judicial scholars say Eakin is likely to be censured by the bench but won’t lose his seat.

Is it simple coincidence that Kane’s attack has been directed against the Supreme Court justices who will ultimately decide her fate?

Consider the line of logic commonly referred to by lawyers as the Rule of Law No. 1:

— When the law is against you, argue the facts.

— When the facts are against you, argue the law.

— When both are against you, attack the system.

With the law and the facts against her, Kane is doing her best to attack the system. And she’s doing so for one major reason: the law and the facts are not on her side.

Pennsylvania cannot tolerate the functional paralysis that’s about to hit the Attorney General’s office — especially knowing where Kane’s case is headed. She should resign or face impeachment.