Should each person have a veto? It'd save legal expense?

The polish legislature (from about 1670 to 1764) had a practice whereby any member could call an end to the current session, and nullify all legislation passed by it. this was called the liberium veto. It caused the country to degenerate into anarchy.
In modern America, it's become possible for any group to use the courts to prevent , or at least force major delays and expense, onto any project they disagree with. This has destroyed too many jobs.
Would anyone want to invest in a project, knowing that there is a risk they will be prevented from completing it, and lose their investment? Nuclear power is a good example - to get investment in new power plants, the government has had to guarantee the bonds, of the companies building them. So that, if they are sued to a stop, like last time, the investors will be repaid ( by taxpayer money) if we don't get nuclear power, I predict that we will have to do the same thing, to get coal fired plants built.

Remember me? Thought I'd come be "obnoxious"...

"Would anyone want to invest in a project, knowing that there is a risk they will be prevented from completing it, and lose their investment?" - I could be wrong but I believe the element of risk is part of any investment.

Okay, so what was your original question? A veto? What decisions are you wanting to veto? A court order? The delay of a specific project? Or are you wanting to veto the "government guarantee" of bonds?

And why do we need to guarantee bonds to get coal fired plants built? I could be badly mistaken, but I believe we get more electricity from coal than any other source in this country.

What you are speaking of is called a filibuster. And yes, the Liberal Democrats have abused it several times in the past.