It might be the most moot of moot issues. So why is Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane bringing up the death penalty now?

Kane asked the state Supreme Court on Monday to nullify Gov. Tom Wolf’s moratorium on executing death row inmates, describing the policy as blatantly unconstitutional and a threat to the justice system. She filed the request in the case of Hubert Lester Michael Jr., on death row for killing 16-year-old Trista Eng in York County nearly 22 years ago.

In her court filing, Kane blasts Gov. Tom Wolf for imposing a moratorium blocking executions in Pennsylvania.

“Never before has a member of the executive branch of government sought to unilaterally negate a criminal penalty across an entire class of cases,” the filing reads. “Never before has a member of the executive branch affirmatively interfered with the proper administration of the law on the grounds that the judicial branch of government has not functioned in a way that meets a personal standard of satisfaction.”

That’s frothy language from an AG who in 2013 refused to defend the state prohibition of gay marriage, and who shut down an undercover sting operation that caught state legislators accepting cash gifts from an undercover informant.

It’s particularly unsettling that Kane brings up the death penalty challenge against Wolf, a fellow Democrat, at the very hour Wolf is struggling past the deadline to establish a budget. It seems disrespectful — or maybe she’s just self-absorbed — to file the challenge now.

It’s not as if Michael is going anywhere. He’s been on death row since 1995.

For his part, Wolf says he’s confident his death-penalty moratorium will withstand legal challenges. He says Kane’s filing doesn’t break any new ground. It echoes issues previously raised by the Philadelphia district attorney in a case pending before the state Supreme Court. And on top of that, Wolf’s policy of issuing reprieves in death row cases is in effect only until a pending study of capital punishment is completed.

Wolf says he wants to do what’s right and that the state should not make “a rush to judgment” on an issue of such importance to future generations.

If the Supreme Court agrees with Kane, then it could clear the way for the state’s first execution since 1999 — at least in theory. Several other roadblocks remain.

For one thing, the Department of Corrections has struggled to obtain the specific drugs required for executions under state law.

Also, the appeals process can be never-ending. With 180 men and two women on Pennsylvania’s death row, there have been only three executions since capital punishment was made legal in the 1970s. In all three cases, the convicts had voluntarily relinquished their appeals.

One final, shrill note of hypocrisy: When Wolf established his new policy, he argued there was data suggesting defendants might be more likely to be charged with capital murder and sentenced to death if they are a racial minority and the victim is white — in other words, the prosecution has racial motivations.

Funny. That’s exactly why Kane refused to go after those legislators who were accused — and later convicted, but not by her — of accepting cash gifts.

— T.A.H.