Sorry, somehow the notification for this didn't pop up until now.
What you're describing is one of the big debates in terms of statutory interpretation. My own somewhat uninformed take is that judges are always conscious of policy motive in some way shape or form (how could you not be?), although they try to avoid hanging their hat on it. Sometimes they go too far IMO: most of the caselaw dealing with racial discrimination, for example, says that you have to show disparate intent, not just disparate impact.