I wasn’t referring to the way the courts view legislative intent. More to the actual real intent of the legislative desires (intent)....
Which is completely irrelevant to a serious discussion of what a law means and how it applies. No doubt each legislator can claim a different, personal intention for voting for or against any particular bill, especially if any important constituent is critical of the legislator's vote.
As the Texas Supreme Court noted in Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Norman, 342 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. 2011). at 58:
....Legislative intent, we have said, “remains the polestar of statutory construction,” Barfield, 898 S.W.2d at 292,...
But that's
legislative intent, i. e., the intent of the legislature as a body, not the intent of any legislator. What any particular legislator might have intended when he voted for a particular law has no bearing on how a court might interpret and apply the law.
...That’s why I made the comment I did....
And your comment had nothing meaningful to contribute to a serious discuss of what a law might mean and how the law might be applied.
Law does not exist in a vacuum. Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal, is a tool used by courts to decide the the issues brought to court for resolution. While the parties may argue what the law is that is applicable to the case, it's up to the court, in the exercise of its judicial function to decide what law actually does apply and how it applies to the facts to decide the outcome. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177):
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.....
In real life in the real world if courts aren't deciding matters using what you think the law is, your understanding of what the law is is wrong. The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. The fact is that no one cares about your opinions, and the world is going about its business, and will continue to do so, without regard to your opinions
...you have to admit that if people didn’t question the intent, then the courts would never have to issue a ruling or a statement about intent. So Obviously people question the intent and have disagreements over legislative intent.
No, I don't have to admit that. I don't have to admit that because it's not true. And it's not true because you have no clue as to how the legal system works, nor how courts decide issues.
It's not a matter of anyone "questioning" legislative intent. As noted above, it's up to the court to decide what the law is that applies to the matters in dispute in any case before the court. The opposing parties will each urge the court to decide those matters of law in ways that best serve the interests of their respective sides. Legislative intent will often be an element of those arguments.
But that is still legislative intent -- not the intentions of any particular legislator.