Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has endured weeks of insults, obnoxious questions and unwelcome drilling into her work as a judge and a lawyer — and it was all on purpose, essentially a dress rehearsal for her confirmation hearings.

In a series of faux hearings, Sotomayor has been barraged by hostile questions thrown her way by allies preparing the federal appeals judge for the interrogation that will begin Monday. She's been reviewing her past writings, speeches, cases and legal opinions while gaming questions she is likely to hear next week when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up her nomination.

And Sotomayor also has been learning the quirks of senators who will do the questioning, and developing a thick skin for the barbs that might come her way.

The point is to ensure that no question comes up that Sotomayor hasn't heard and hasn't answered in the mock exercises.

"Judges are not accustomed to being judged," said Ed Gillespie, a White House counsel for President George W. Bush who helped prepare John Roberts and Samuel Alito for their confirmation hearings. "Helping them to understand the nature of the confirmation process and the nature of the Senate is important."

Sotomayor has faced Senate questioning before — when she was nominated by President George H.W. Bush for a federal trial judgeship in 1992, and again in 1997 when President Bill Clinton nominated her for a seat on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A fundraiser at an upstate university has sued two senior athletic department officials, accusing them of using her as a "plaything" and trying to make her ply big donors with her sexuality.

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Williams, is represented by the lawyer who won a highly publicized sexual harassment case against former New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas two years ago.

Williams' lawsuit, filed late Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that after she took the fundraising position late last year in the Binghamton University athletic department, she "discovered that her new bosses viewed women as playthings and expected women in the department to raise money by exploiting their sexuality."

A spokeswoman for the university, which has about 15,000 undergraduate and graduate students, said it "has zero tolerance" for harassment or discrimination and was "dismayed" by the allegations against athletic department officials Jason Siegel and Chris Lewis.

Three gay-friendly legal groups have asked to be part of a federal lawsuit challenging California's same-sex marriage ban — a request that drew an icy reception from the activists behind the case.

After publicly questioning the wisdom of the suit and then submitting papers in support of it, the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights said they want to represent gay community groups in the proceedings.

The three legal organizations are the same ones that have long led the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal's national marriage director, said their full participation is vital now that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has put the Proposition 8 challenge on a fast-track to trial.

"We think it will be very helpful to Judge Walker and the ultimate resolution of the questions in the case for the litigation to have the benefit of the presence of the community in all its diversity," Pizer said.

But the newly formed political group funding the case, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is opposing the request. The foundation scored a public relations coup when it persuaded the high-profile lawyers who squared off over the disputed 2000 presidential election to take on the lawsuit.

In a letter to the legal groups sent Wednesday, board president Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles-based political consultant, said the show of solidarity was coming too late since the same groups originally criticized a federal civil rights claim as premature.

A Las Vegas man won a courtroom battle Wednesday with the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles over his "HOE" license plate, which the agency tried to cancel on grounds that he was using a slang reference to prostitutes.

The high court said the DMV based its opposition to William Junge's plate on definitions found in the Web-based Urban Dictionary, which includes user contributions. Justices ruled that the contributed definitions "do not always reflect generally accepted definitions for words."

Junge, whose case was pursued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said he got the "HOE" plate in 1999 for his Chevy Tahoe, after being told "TAHOE" wasn't available.

"It's nonsense," Junge said of the state agency's efforts to pull his plates. The 62-year-old said he was referring to his vehicle's model and not to prostitutes with his plates, adding: "That was their interpretation. Shame on them."

The high court said Urban Dictionary "allows, if not encourages, users to invent new words or attribute new, not generally accepted meanings to existing words."

But "a reasonable mind would not accept the Urban Dictionary entries alone as adequate to support a conclusion that the word 'HOE' is offensive or inappropriate," the justices wrote.

Rebecca Gasca of the ACLU of Nevada said the attempt by a DMV supervisor to cancel Junge's license plate violated constitutional First Amendment protections. Junge dropped out of the litigation after the DMV appealed to the Supreme Court, but the ACLU continued the fight.

"While the Urban Dictionary might be an entertaining Web site about the English language, the court acknowledged it's not a reliable source for DMV decision-making about whether a license plate is vulgar," Gasca said.

In written briefs submitted to the state Supreme Court, an attorney for the DMV argued there was no First Amendment violation and the state has a reasonable basis for regulating vanity plates on vehicles. It also said the term "hoe" was derogatory toward women.

Brooke Astor's son is back at his Manhattan trial, a day after he fell and hit his head in a courthouse restroom.

Anthony Marshall, who's 85, had heart surgery last fall. He takes blood thinners and walks unsteadily with a cane. He also has reportedly suffered a mild stroke.

Marshall denies charges that he exploited his mother's dementia to loot her $198 million fortune.

On Thursday, a prosecution witness waited to resume her testimony as lawyers held a conference with the judge.

Pearline Noble of the Bronx was Astor's nursing assistant. She started working for the philanthropist in mid-2003, helping her with grooming and other personal tasks.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's thin record on the limits of presidential power suggests she will be neither reflexively hostile to broad expansion of a president's authority nor a reliable rubber stamp in support of it.

Three cases in particular offer clues:

_ As a judge on the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Sotomayor dismissed complaints of commuters about random searches aimed at stopping terrorists on a ferry 300 miles north of New York City.

_ Citing an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court on the same topic, she upheld President George W. Bush's decision to prohibit U.S. aid to international family planning groups that support abortion.

_ On the other hand, Sotomayor joined colleagues in striking down parts of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act that Bush sought automatically prohibiting Internet service providers from telling customers when the government asks for private information about them.

Sotomayor has ruled in only a handful of foreign policy and national security cases that turned in part on constitutional limits to the powers enjoyed by the president, including the government's ability to respond to the threats, fears and vulnerabilities laid bare by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism attacks.

In those rulings, as well as a speech she gave in 2003 at the Indiana University law school, she appeared to be more willing to consider robust use of presidential authority than was Justice David Souter, the man she would replace.

Souter, who retired last week, was among the justices most skeptical of the powers asserted by the Bush administration following Sept. 11.

While Sotomayor has leaned heavily on earlier court decisions to support her rulings — as appeals court judges must — she soon could face potentially groundbreaking cases on national security if President Barack Obama asserts executive authority to continue detaining suspected terrorists.

Obama's far-reaching steps to deal with the economy also could provoke legal challenges that could make their way to the high court. The justices recently rejected a bid to stop Chrysler LLC's sale of most of its assets to Italian automaker Fiat.