Often one sees judges attempting speculatively to infer legislators' intents by reasoning about their language. Yet nonetheless the objective seems to be to ascertain the legislators' original intentions.
If they really wanted to do this, it seems as though the most reliable and non-speculative method would be simply to ask the authors of the language what had been meant.
While the purpose of a separate judiciary is independence and checks and balances to ensure rule of written law, it would seem fair for the judiciary to quiz and challenge the authors as to the plausibility of their clarifications, given the actual written and assented words, in order to prevent them from misadvising the judges if it suits their political purposes after the fact.
So my question is simply: in any jurisdiction, but particularly common law ones like the UK and US, is it ever heard of for a judge to ask legislative authors for clarifications? Why, or why not?