Not Trump, but it could be arguable that McConnell's refusal to take Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland forward was against the spirit of the division of powers constitutional setting.
Mitch McConnell says he would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in 2020
This contradicts the Senate majority leader’s position in 2016
Democracy in America May 30th 2019
by S.M. | NEW YORK
WHEN ANTONIN SCALIA died suddenly in 2016, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, wasted no time staking out the Republican position on the conservative jurist’s successor. Hours after news broke of Mr Scalia’s demise, Mr McConnell declared that “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice”. With nearly nine months to go before the presidential election, he told America that his legislative chamber would take no action on any Supreme Court nominee named by Barack Obama. “This vacancy”, he announced, articulating a broad principle, “should not be filled until we have a new president.”
It was an aggressive move. The constitution gives presidents the power to nominate federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, and the Senate’s “advice and consent” are necessary before they take their seats. But Mr McConnell took the unprecedented step of building a blockade around Scalia’s seat rather than give a hearing to Merrick Garland, the moderate chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals nominated by Mr Obama. After stonewalling Judge Garland for the remaining 11 months of Mr Obama’s term, the Republican Senate avidly took up Donald Trump’s nominee, the highly conservative Neil Gorsuch. He was confirmed on April 7, 2017.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
