The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not known for being shy about defending its prerogatives, has put itself in a curious situation.After months of intrigue and court silence, the justices surprised Pennsylvania's legal community by saying they would hear public arguments on Attorney General Kathleen Kane's legal challenge to the court's self-appointed power to launch special prosecutions.

The case in question is a court-ordered investigation into whether Kane's office illegally shared secret investigative material with the Philadelphia Daily News. The result was a grand jury's recommendation that Kane be charged with perjury and other offenses.

The justices may not ultimately agree with Kane that the courts lack the authority to appoint prosecutors to run grand juries or investigate her office. But, say lawyers and court watchers, the justices must at least clean up a murky and messy process that has been dogged by questions about legality and constitutionality.