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. 
( z1 contrast :ARG1 ( z2 have :ARG0 ( z3 no-one ) :ARG1 ( z4 fly :location ( z5 face :part-of z3 ) ) :ARG1-of ( z6 actual ) ) :ARG2 ( z7 mean :ARG0 ( z8 person :ARG0-of ( z9 speak ) ) :ARG2 ( z10 potential :domain ( z11 something :ARG1-of ( z12 contrary :ARG2 ( z13 precedent :ARG1-of ( z14 legal ) ) ) ) :poss z3 ) :mod ( z15 just ) ) )