It actually depends on the judge whether the lawmaker has a say in it. Traditionally, most judges looked to the legislature for this kind of thing, but that type of judge has been in rapid decline over the last few decades.

Let's take an example. Imagine a municipality wanted to pass an anti-electric scooter law. So they pass a law that bans "electric scooters, electric bicycles, and other such electric motor powered conveyances not generally used by handicapped people" from city sidewalks.

Then one day someone gets arrested for driving a mobility scooter on the sidewalk (like, the three-wheeled things in Wal-Mart, not a Bird). Is this covered by the law? On one hand, it explicitly bans "scooters" and this is a scooter. On the other hand, it says it doesn't target conveyances generally used by the handicapped.

So the court takes it up. Traditionally, a judge might look a the transcripts of the city council as evidence, and find that the line about handicapped vehicles was inserted by a city councilman who said he specifically wanted to allow mobility scooters. When he said this to the rest of the council, they unanimously agreed to add the exemption. So with this very clear evidence of legislative intent, the judge rules that mobility scooters are fine.

Another judge is a textualist. This is an increasingly popular way to look at laws in judicial circles right now. A textualist doesn't care about what the city council meant only what the law says. The text of the law is the text of the law, period.

Which sounds convincing, but the problem with that is two people can look at a law that's a bit vague or seems to conflict in two places, and come up with different readings. One textualist might say, sorry, mobility scooters are banned. Hell, the law is called the "Get Scooters Off Our Sidewalks Act." It's a dumb law, the judge says, but that's what it says.

Another textualist looks at the same law and says, of course it doesn't mean mobility scooters. Any idiot can see that!

The great thing about textualism to a judge is it basically boils down to "the law is what I think it is." And they can ignore the legislature's opinion. It gives judges much more power. Which is why it's popular with the kind of judges that like to overturn precedent like Scalia was.