I thought my opinion was clear in that regard, and as you appropriately characterize, no questions as to bias or motivation or reasons to misrepresent quotes would be allowed in. There I believe we would decidedly fly in the face of established case law.
No one actually has a fly in their face, the speaker just means that their is a potential for something to be contrary to legal precedent.
I basically just rephrased the original statement the way I would if I were explaining it to something who was unfamiliar with the phrase fly in the face, which was enough to confuse the system. I did somehow use the wrong form of there while I was rephrasing this, though, which is irritating and not correct. 