Breaking format, with an "I don't know."
The two things are the two filibusters, the live one by Rand Paul and the cloture defeat for a DC Circuit Court nominee.
Will Rand Paul's filibuster turn out to have mattered? Yes, if it sparks a cross-party coalition on civil liberties, or if it's the beginning of a more assertive Congress on national security. Or if it starts serious internal change in the GOP on some of these issues. Will it do so? I'm skeptical -- and a remarkably empty WaPo op-ed by Paul certainly doesn't make me think it's more likely -- but it's certainly not impossible.
On the other one: any single nomination battle matters some, especially for the DC Circuit Court, which is a big deal. So it matters to some extent. But it's too soon to tell what pattern, if any, it's a part of. Note that two more judicial nominations are scheduled to come to the floor under a unanimous consent agreement on Monday. It's possible we've reverted back to the Bush years, where the opposition party uses the filibuster selectively against those nominees they are particularly upset about, but will let the rest through. But it's also possible that not much has changed, and constant filibusters will spark (as Richard Durbin suggested this week) further reform. I don't know!
So that's what I have. What else is there? What do you think mattered this week?