Of course a party line vote.

A lot of ways to interpret this ruling from a broader strategic perspective.

Here's the link to the official ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Some analysis from Jonathan Turley on X(https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1807785241588744694):

No protection for unofficial acts. So the issue is whether what constitutes official acts. It is a very for Trump in the sense that the Court rejected the lower court and recognizes some immunity. That will further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons. The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers.

Note this language: Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. "

Moves and countermoves. We all saw how this could play out if SCOTUS ruled against President Trump and the vulnerabilities it would create for criminal Presidents like Biden, Obama and Bush. But there is some nuance to this ruling as well. Still reading the full opinion.