• With: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

    This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," July 22, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

    GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Tonight, the defendant is here, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As you know, the feds and other groups are suing Arizona and Governor Brewer, trying to block the state's illegal immigration law from going into effect one week from today. Now, there were two court hearings in Arizona today.

    Governor Brewer joins us live from Phoenix. Good evening, Governor.

    GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ.: Good evening, Greta. How are you?

    VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well. What do you think of the term "defendant"? That's what you are in this lawsuit.

    (LAUGHTER)

    BREWER: Well, it was a little surreal today sitting in court, when you heard the lawyers stand up and said who they represented. And of course the plaintiff said, The United States, and then my attorney said, Governor Jan Brewer and the State of Arizona. Then the reality really kind of sunk in.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right, set the stage for me. Was the courtroom crowded?

    BREWER: Very, very crowded. It was a very large courtroom, very modern. And it was cylinder-shaped. And people could stand up above us and look down. And of course, all the seats in the courtroom were all filled, lots of reporters. There were a lot of activists on both sides of the issue out in the courtyard and on the street. So it was a lot of activity today. It's a big day, a big day for Arizona, a big day for America!

    VAN SUSTEREN: As you listened to the argument from the lawyer representing the United States, did you begin to worry about whether or not that your statute would stand?

    BREWER: No. I feel very, very confident, even moreso now that we have been there and had the presentation. It was very well done. And I'm very, very confident of Judge Bolton. She seems to have a very, very good grasp of the issues. And I thought that it went very, very well. I feel very confident.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Did the judge grill the lawyers on both sides?

    BREWER: She did. She asked them questions. And of course, some of the testimony from the earlier morning testimony kind of bled through to the afternoon testimony so it didn't have to be repeated again. But yes, she did. She asked questions and tried to get them to qualify some of the issues. But she was so well informed and had such a great grasp of what she was dealing with, it just gave me a really good sense of confidence.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think you'll be saying she's well informed and she really grasps the issues if she rules against you?

    (LAUGHTER)

    BREWER: Well, you know, I probably won't be as cheery if that should happen. But I truly feel, Greta, that the way that the case has been presented and the way that it -- the law is written that we will prevail. I really believe that Arizona will prevail.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Did she give any indication -- I know that she's not required to state when she's going to decide, but this was a request by the federal government for an injunction to stop from you enforcing your law as of next Thursday. But did she give any indication -- did she say, Look, I need to decide this by Thursday?

    BREWER: No, she did not. Now, I can look in my crystal ball and tell you that, you know, we're all kind of guessing and surmising just exactly what she will do. And you know, she could do it, you know, in the next couple, two, three days. I would not be surprised if she didn't make some kind of decision.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Was the lawyer for the United States friendly to you, introducing himself or herself to you?

    BREWER: He did. He -- my attorney -- he came over and introduced himself to me, that's correct. He came over and introduced himself to me and to our attorneys. And we chatted, and I welcomed them to Arizona. And they were very cordial, very cordial.

    VAN SUSTEREN: You know, it's interesting...

    BREWER: Actually, it was the solicitor general, I understand. It was the solicitor general.

    VAN SUSTEREN: It's interesting that most of the focus...

    BREWER: That did the testimony.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Most of the focus has been on whether or not there's racial profiling, or supremacy clause is the other issue that the attention's been on. But what seized my attention tonight is the discussion in the court today about whether or not the detention was constitutional, that you could -- that the state of Arizona could detain someone for a period of time while checking to see whether the person is legal or illegal in this country. Did the judge spend a lot of time questioning your lawyer about that?

    BREWER: Yes, they did discuss that at some length. And you know, it's something that is worthy of being discussed. Again, I just feel that we're on good standing and that it's an issue that will be determined by her. And of course, we've got confidence in our judicial system. And it's likely that whatever happens, that either side will probably appeal it to the 9th circuit, so...

    VAN SUSTEREN: Now, you didn't have to be there, so why did you go? What -- why do you think it was important for the governor to go?

    BREWER: Well, you know, I was interested, first of all. I mean, I -- you know, I put a lot of time and energy in this and I feel so strongly about it that I thought that since I was named in the lawsuit personally -- not personally, but as governor, Janice K. Brewer, that you know, I should be there. I should put a face to this issue. And I did go down there and I enjoyed it. It was interesting, very, very interesting.

    VAN SUSTEREN: What -- in terms of the judge grilling the lawyer, I understand that your lawyer got grilled on the issue of the detention. But what was the thing that was the hardest for the lawyer for the United States to answer, do you think?

    BREWER: Oh, gosh, Greta. It all sounded very difficult to me because I'm not a lawyer, you know? And they were talking legalities on sections - - of C -- of C and D, I -- and it was questionable, and he wanted to keep elaborating on subsection C, and she -- and she indicated to him that she understood that issue, that she didn't -- and I can't remember what the issue was, darn it.

    And -- but I'll tell you what was really funny is that she said, Well, she says, I understand that, I get that. And he -- and he continued, and she says, Well, she says, it's up to you if you want to talk about it, she says, you've got -- it's your hour.

    (LAUGHTER)

    VAN SUSTEREN: And I don't -- and I don't mean to put you on the spot because I know you have a lawyer and that's why you hire lawyers, so you don't have to argue the legal issues yourself. But all right...

    BREWER: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: ... let me switch to the topic -- let me switch to the topic of the National Guard, news that on August 1st (INAUDIBLE) some National Guard sent down to your neck of the woods. Are you heartened by this? Is this (INAUDIBLE) a step in the right direction, or do you feel it's something that's just simply not enough, so it doesn't do much for you?

    BREWER: Well, absolutely, it doesn't do enough. It's certainly nowhere near what we need on the border, you know? And we have no really comprehensive plan or strategy of how these are going to be implemented, where they're going to be.

    We did receive notice that they were going to be arriving August 1st, and at this point in time, we just really haven't had a whole lot of information from the feds to tell us exactly what they'll be doing and where they will be. And are they actually going to be on the border, or are they going to be, you know, 100 miles away or 200 miles away? So we'll just have to wait and see.

    But we still -- you know, we need more than that, absolutely need more than that, and we'll continue to request more than that. We want them to step up and do their job. We need our borders secured.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Is there -- do you know who's in charge of the National Guard or what level -- in terms of, like, you know, who's going to be coordinating with these troops? Because I imagine it's some organizational nightmare to coordinate against (ph) the various law enforcement. But have you even reached that stage of organizing it with the National Guard?