Is "in fact" always set off by commas mid-sentence because it's a parenthetical interrupter? I see no need to use them. The only time we'd do so (I think) is with one comma after "in fact" when it starts a sentence: In fact, I think we should remind him of the possible repercussions.
Do you support the omission of commas around 'in fact' in the following three examples?
Examples:
Correct:? 1. Mike said that he did in fact support the new policy.
Correct? I was surprised and appalled by her actions when she did in fact curse my grandmother.
Correct? I will in fact question her about the theft.
Best Answer
This is somewhat of an opinion question, obviously, so the strict answer to the question in your title is, "No, commas are not always needed." Where they are needed is somewhat of a judgment call based on the intended meaning and the general flow of the sentence.
Part of the issue is that "in fact" can be moved all over the place in a sentence:
The missing commas in (1) are understandable and not completely necessary. The commas in (2) are more necessary but I've seen people leave them out. (3)'s usage is a bit ambiguous (it could be modifying "Mike said" instead of "he did support") but the comma is very much necessary.
"In fact" is less needed here and will probably receive commas more frequently than your first example, simply because the inclusion of "in fact" doesn't do anything special on its own. It is more obviously a parenthetical note than the usage from your first example.
There isn't really a hard rule, here.
This is probably the toughest of your three examples to answer and I suspect this will result in the most differing opinions. My opinion is that it sounds better with the commas:
If I were to say or write this without commas I would probably end up removing "in fact" completely: