On first glance, he would do a lot less damage as Attorney General than he would as chair of the Senate committee. However, he'd be able to redirect enforcement priorities of various state laws and offer up "new interpretations" of existing statute.
Yes he could , BUT so could/ will Gansler. Gansler seems to just be waiting for appeal to play out first. The baseline for the political calculus is how much worse could Frosh be as AG than Gansler ? In any way of looking at it , either would be less dangerous as AG than in Gov, or Senate Judiciary Committe.
Taking the broader historical view to include 1st and 2nd round Civil Rights eras as well as current situation :
Extreme State level ruling classes , when they have substantial voting base backing them up , will ignore outright unfavorable SC rulings as long as they plausably can , followed by series of statutes to nominally comply while still substntially obstructing the SC intent.